tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78087833131746733872018-05-05T14:19:51.390-07:00The Bible BeanArtisan interpretation brewed in small batchesJoseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-82268988638698453352017-01-18T12:41:00.000-08:002017-01-18T12:41:06.491-08:00Prunes and Wrinkles in Translating<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_shrD-_TsoA/WH_LgXmbakI/AAAAAAAAAnM/HYJF9viL8b8V19fGlrvdqputuRXo6ULLgCLcB/s1600/prunes_plums.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_shrD-_TsoA/WH_LgXmbakI/AAAAAAAAAnM/HYJF9viL8b8V19fGlrvdqputuRXo6ULLgCLcB/s200/prunes_plums.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>One&nbsp;of the occasional joys of devotionally translating scripture is seeing connections English can't help but hide. A real treat for us came in John 15:2-3, "...He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you." On the surface it seems like Jesus abruptly switched topic. He didn't, and the visual he paints is very practical.<a name='more'></a><br /><br /><br />In verse three, the reader hits the word&nbsp;<span class="wordGlow_off" id="w_TR_63447" title="'clean' - From the root καθαρός (G2513)">καθαροί</span>&nbsp; "clean" an adjective. It looks surprisingly similar to a word we just encountered. Lifting our eyes we find&nbsp;<span class="wordGlow_off" id="w_TR_63439" title="'he purgeth' - From the root καθαίρω (G2508)">καθαίρει</span>&nbsp;"prune" a verb right above it in verse two. Chapters away we might have missed the similarity. But right next to each other there&nbsp;is no coincidence. This&nbsp;connection is intended. How does&nbsp;God&nbsp;"prune" God's people? God "prunes"&nbsp;by teaching. Whenever and wherever God's word is spoken, it&nbsp;purges and expiates. But not always.<br /><br /><br />And then we have an inkling that we've seen this word in John before, a couple chapters ago. Back when Jesus was washing the disciples feet. Peter, in typical over the top fashion (which btw is devout discipleship practice in the ancient world), asks Jesus to wash his feet and whole body. Jesus answers, "The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely <span class="wordGlow_off" id="w_TR_62345" title="'clean' - From the root καθαρός (G2513)">καθαρὸς</span> (clean), and you disciples are <span class="wordGlow_off" id="w_TR_62349" title="'clean' - From the root καθαρός (G2513)">καθαροί</span>&nbsp;(clean), but not every one of you."<br /><br /><br />The next verse makes it clear that the not-clean one is Judas, which unlocks another&nbsp;practical visual. Jesus is visualizing Judas' betrayal when he describes a branch that isn't producing fruit and is removed, thrown away, dries up, is gathered up, and is burned. <strong>Jesus is not speaking of followers who feel insecure about the quality or quantity of their good deeds.</strong><br /><br /><br />To make the connection clear in John 15 for English readers, my initial reaction was that both instances should be translated "prune".<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">He <strong><em>prunes</em></strong> every branch that bears fruit...</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">You are <strong><em>pruned</em></strong> already because of the word that I have spoken to you...&nbsp;</blockquote>But then on further reflection, I realized that this would hide the connection with the foot washing and being "clean" in John 13. So my current thought is that each instance in John should use some form of "clean" in English.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">...the one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely <strong><em>clean</em></strong>, and you disciples are <strong><em>clean</em></strong>, but not every one of you.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">He <strong><em>cleans</em></strong> every branch that bears fruit...</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">You are <strong><em>clean</em></strong> already because of the word that I have spoken to you...&nbsp;</blockquote>There can be a foot note on 15:2 that "clean" essentially means prune when describing gardening. If we were to go in the other direction and translate each instance as prune, it would make for some humorous but unintended bathroom language in English.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely <strong><em>pruned</em></strong>, and you are disciples are <strong><em>pruned</em></strong> ...</blockquote>This little treat can't easily be found if we are dependent on Concordance searches and Strong's numbers. These are useful tools, but they can only take us so far. The word of God is meant to be read, heard, and pondered.&nbsp;Our ears and eyes can catch things that digital searches miss. Only in this way can God's word wash even the deepest wrinkle.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-62667756318329119932015-07-08T12:42:00.000-07:002015-07-08T12:42:04.900-07:00The Fog of Inspiration<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2JotJGMJSU/VYyOti9CgjI/AAAAAAAAATI/LY48ATXBvgk/s1600/f-friend-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="126" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2JotJGMJSU/VYyOti9CgjI/AAAAAAAAATI/LY48ATXBvgk/s200/f-friend-2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Right now lots of people are upset with the Supreme Court for interpreting a law by its intent and context rather than its words. After all, the law's authors are still alive. As one trained in the art of translation and interpretation of the Bible, all I can say is WOW! I would gladly give my right eye if I could ask Paul or Moses what they meant at certain obscure points, especially before I proclaim it as the will of God. There are poetry words so rare in Hebrew that no scholar alive today has the slightest guess as to their meaning. Translators literally plug in 'filler' in English at these points. This illustrates a fundamental principle true through every age and culture,&nbsp;<b>translations are interpretations</b>. There's no escaping it. This reality forces me to an uncomfortable question. Is a text, the Christian Bible, really our authority?<br /><a name='more'></a><div><br /><div>Follow me for a moment. The Bible is a library of books copied by disciples, translated by missionaries, and handed to me by a local minister. Transmission issues aside (although I think these are fun), I'm essentially trusting the hand that gives me the book. The truth and beauty in its pages are undeniable. But my trust in its authority comes from my esteem in its wielder. The people of God, past and present, Jewish, Greek and Christian are the context of the Bible itself. They are the litmus test for all interpretations' viability. And while these groups change and fade, our hope is that they pass a baton of tradition that is trustworthy and unchanged. Perhaps claiming a text as our rule for life and belief has really only served to short change person-to-person discipleship.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is the point where many modern Christians tread on inspiration, recenter intent on community, and become academically liberal, where our opinions about God become as valid as any ancient prophet's musing from God. This distrust is hubris.</div><div><br /></div><div>To believe God speaks, to believe that these words (wherever they are identified) have authority is a step of faith, even after seeing all the agreement and overlap of manuscripts. There is no one perfect tangible copy of the word of God written down. There is no sole manuscript I can point to that is copy-error free (if even that can be proved). Nor is there a single group whose interpretation and translation of the text has resisted all ambiguity and fallacy. Yet inspiration exists and is preserved. How? In what form?&nbsp;<b>It lives within a body of manuscripts and communities&nbsp;</b>with a high degree of confirmation. We essentially have a corpus, a collection of manuscripts and communities in which 100% of inspiration is contained and passed on like DNA to the next generation. There are mutations from time to time in pockets here and there. Some even go so far back we no longer are sure of the most faithful wording. Our logic and our ambition might prefer a simple black or white, right or wrong answer in every discrepancy. But it is the tension between the differences that keeps us dependent on each other, and humble.</div><div><br /></div><div>The New Testament even anticipates this transition away from 'the letter' of the law. The Church endorsing four gospels about Jesus without feeling the need to reconcile the differences or selecting one as most trustworthy is a testament to&nbsp;<b>finding inspiration&nbsp;<i>between</i>&nbsp;texts</b>. Or take Jesus' and the Apostles' emphasis on the Spirit of the law vs the Letter of the law. Here the principle originally conceived in the law is considered an enduring spirit which may not be overruled by semantics. Even the location of the new law is evidence for moving away from legalism. The new law's letters are inscribed invisibly on hearts rather than on clay tablets and parchment. I would contend that first century Judaism was in a fundamental shift of authority. As its focus had shifted away from the temple to the law during the Babylonian exile, in the time of Jesus it was shifting from the law to the messiah, from words on a page to words made flesh.</div><div><br /></div><div>We may lament that fewer and fewer people read or trust the Bible in our scientific age. In reality, they have lost trust in us, in we who hand them a particular book. Did we think that people would believe the Bible merely because the subtitle we gave it was "The Word of God". The youngest of internet users knows to suspect everything they read. If we want the Bible to be credible, we have to be credible and relevant in our culture. If we can't convince them to trust the church, there is no way they are going to trust our book. Instead of preaching, "this book is the word of God," in absolute terms, first we have to say:<br /><br />"As much as God is with us, and as much as you can see it, feel it, and know that it is true, than you can trust what our heritage wrote of God, because we are are their students and a reflection of them. The portion of truth and healing and inspiration we have to give is a measure of how faithfully and accurately we have preserved and passed on those moments God has moved and spoken a clear message in their lives and words. The truth in this collection of books is more valuable to us than gold. It is the record of God meeting with people, with us, and those moments of history when the wall between our world's is thin is precious and we will not forget them, nor hide them. We may judge the interpretation of these words to be this or that, but these words will one day be our judge. Beyond these words, we can offer only educated advice, and fallible counsel."<br /><br />Do I leave the ranks of Protestants and descend back into the bosom of Roman Catholicism, where truth is found both in church dogma and sacred texts as co-equal? There is a bit of a chicken and egg paradox here. Yesterday's tradition has become today's written scripture. And yesterday's written scripture quickly becomes incoherent without cultural help, some of which comes from tradition.<br /><br />My position is that trust in church authority usually precedes trust in scripture in practice, in individual experience. This by no means that infallibility resides primarily or even co-equally with the church or its living tradition. And this is where I differ from Roman Catholicism. <b>Essentially, church authority is transitional</b> or missional, in that church credibility serves to plant people on a more secure foundation of established written scripture, which a person may eventually mine for themselves.<br /><br />I agree with Catholics that not all written scripture is clear, and we do need means found outside the Bible to provide context. But, I agree with Protestants that enough scripture is clear enough to elicit anticipation in the authority of Jesus, cause conviction, and result in Godward repentance. While much tradition is true, handed down both from the Church and from Judaism, it is not infallible, even though it may be authoritative.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div></div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-73781200317856864922015-06-26T15:18:00.001-07:002015-06-26T15:18:38.774-07:00Marriage - kicking the teeth out of Covenant<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3OCQsr6fJrQ/VY3Emo8iYSI/AAAAAAAAATs/S_eBlNe0Lg8/s1600/Ancient-Ketubah-written-in-Tzefat-whole-year-1063-CE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3OCQsr6fJrQ/VY3Emo8iYSI/AAAAAAAAATs/S_eBlNe0Lg8/s200/Ancient-Ketubah-written-in-Tzefat-whole-year-1063-CE.jpg" width="118" /></a></div>Losing the culture war over marriage is hard. But the Supreme Court did not ruin marriage today by its ruling. The American Church changed the definition of marriage centuries ago, and it is only today catching up with us. While we call marriage a covenant before God, the nearly universal ignorance of what that means precludes the possibility of marriage having any enduring significance among us or in our culture.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Marriage ceremonies have the leftover vestiges of what used to be covenant</b>: promises, gifts, witnesses, ritual meals. But we have removed the one thing that made all the overtures a covenant. We don't swear curses. The reason a covenant is a covenant is because there are self-accepted consequences for breaches of faith. Let me explain.</div><div><br /></div><div>Promises of fidelity are great, even romantic. But "I will..." does not become covenant until we add, "and if I don't ...." In the ancient world one's sincere belief in a god's ability to punish was the guarantor that one stayed in line. These self requested penalties were the teeth of the covenant. They were how covenant was enforced.</div><div><br /></div><div>The reason I say the Church changed the definition of marriage is because it neglected treating marriage as a covenant for so long that everyone forgot what the word meant. Showering the bride and groom with "blessings" was fashionable and tasteful. Pronouncing curses for infidelity, abandoned, or abuse were not popular. Can't say I'm surprised. We sprinkled couples with statements about "love til death" and neglected to speak of responsibility and even more important, consequence.</div><div><br /></div><div>But wait. Do loving commitments need such mistrustful, dark oaths? Why bring up such negativity on what's supposed to be a happy day? Remember, swearing an oath (with a curse) is not something done to someone else. Asking to be punished for future bad behavior by a higher authority is a way to <i>prove</i>&nbsp;one's loyalty <i>to another</i>. The assumption is that I would never want my fields to burn, or my house to be looted, or my groin to suffer injury. The only way I would accept such consequences would be if I never planned on deserving them. It's a way for me to put my money where my mouth is and show my partner (and her parents) that I mean what I say. Swearing a curse is like saying, "I love you. You are so precious. If I ever hurt you, may heaven's hounds hunt me down to the far corners of the earth." This is love as a commitment. This is not love as a feeling.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>In modern marriages ceremonies done by Christian ministers there are no consequences agreed upon by bride or groom if they mistreat or leave each other. In local churches, what consequences are there for mistreating a spouse or breaking faith? Even if the offending party was banned from the church, they could just go down the street to another church's divorce support group. And what does the government do if I break faith or mistreat my spouse? Nothing. They don't meddle in the "bedroom". They just want their $50 for a license. (A license I supposedly need to get married? Come on!) The most I'd be on the hook for is child support. But I'd be on the hook for that whether we married or not. Do you see the problem?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Arguing over who can get married, when, and where is meaningless.</b> Saying two men may or may not marry isn't giving marriage a definition. In fact, the single biggest reason couples live together unwed into perpetuity is because they see no benefit to marriage. Why sign a piece of paper? After all, that's all it is, a useless piece of paper. Especially when an unmarried mother might receive thousands of dollars of public assistance, and risks losing it if she marries the father whom she has lived with for years.</div><div><br />To no one's surprise, the one group that has maintained the covenantal aspect of marriage up to the modern era (at least in principle) are the Jews. In a traditional Jewish wedding there is an artistic agreement drawn up called a Katubah. A Katubah is a kind of prenuptial agreement that outlines the responsibilities of a husband to his wife, <b>and what the financial penalty he must pay to her</b> if he leaves. The prospect of alimony is a powerful deterrent for the husband against making poor choices and it simultaneously provides material support for a woman if such choices are made. While the legal force of such agreements are questionable and rarely if ever enforced, maybe they should be.<br /><br /></div><div>There is a kind of marriage in three states that resembles a covenant agreement. In Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana couples may opt for a more restrictive type of marriage called "covenant marriage" in which the couple agrees to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for later seeking a divorce. My contention is that<b> this was what all marriage used to be</b>. It is only because we have stripped marriage of its essential force that we even feel the need to fabricate a loftier tier of marriage. Marriage is an an agreement which compels with force individuals to stay together and treat each other well. Anything less than this is merely a tax status or an expensive social party.<br /><br />What do I recommend? Protest with a subversive wedding, one that avoids the normal hoops of a paper thin marriage, but one that seeks out real commitment. Before getting married, hire a lawyer and draw up a pre-nuptial agreement about the repercussions of and conditions for abuse, infidelity, and divorce. And then don't bother getting a marriage licence from the state. Getting permission to marry from the government is worthless, and presumptuous on the government's part. Then get married with any ceremony style you choose, and begin to list your tax status as such. If certain ID offices or insurances give you trouble, ignore them and go around them. Show society how irrelevant government marriages have become.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-75647585423663802762015-06-24T18:01:00.000-07:002015-06-24T18:04:07.597-07:00When Violence becomes a Gift of the Spirit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JhFJz9_-Zpo/VYtRr5MjXQI/AAAAAAAAASw/BaYN9gKg2Hw/s1600/large_shutterstock_161459273.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JhFJz9_-Zpo/VYtRr5MjXQI/AAAAAAAAASw/BaYN9gKg2Hw/s200/large_shutterstock_161459273.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>We love to talk about the gentleness of God in the Western world. It is a check not just to our power and influence in the world, but to our proclivity towards war. God’s Spirit is not always gentile, however, especially when it comes to dealing with oppressive world powers.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br />At church we are preaching through through the book of Samuel. Here we find one of my most cherished statements about what the Spirit does in our world. In chapter 10:6-9 we read that the Spirit changes Saul’s heart, and that this is synonymous with being transformed into ‘another’ person and prophesying.<br /><br />But I must leave my rose colored post-modern glasses behind and begin to grapple with what this looks like in the pages before it and after it. In Samuel, the major function of the Spirit is to empower the warrior to win battles for the oppressed people of God. Saul begins to win against the Philistines. And then the Spirit leaves Saul and loses ensue. But when the Spirit ‘rushes’ (itself a violent description in Hebrew) upon David, David can overcome Philistine champions.<br /><br />Let’s focus on the Spirit leaving/rejecting Saul for a moment. Before we read into this lots of theology (much more than intended) about going to heaven, let’s admit that in context this is first and foremost a statement about 1) who is the rightful king, and 2) who has the ability to win in battle. For the ancient reader these two things were essentially the same thing since the primary war chief had first claim to kingship.<br /><br />In fact, this dynamic of the Spirit leaving and returning is not even new for Samuel. Within Samson’s own life (probably a contemporary of the prophet Samuel) the Spirit dwelt, left, and returned. How does this manifest itself? Strength to fight and win or the lack there of. This is consistent even with the first mention of the Spirit in Genesis 1:2. While many translate the Hebrew verb as, “hovering” or even “fluttering” the scene is written in the language of ancient war poetry, where God conquers chaos. Here the Spirit acts as a strong wind which quells the rage of the waves and subdues them in preparation for creation. It is no accident that Jesus replicated this miracle for his disciples.<br /><br /><b>What does this say for us today? </b>One may say that since the Spirit is now freely poured out on all of God’s people that we are all kings and queens of God upon the earth. Or one may say that we should engage in violent vigilante justice. These two interpretations, one quite Narnian, and one quite Jihadist, are extreme and the New Testament has a specific answer to this question already. There is a legitimate holy war in modern times, but not against other nations or religions or even people themselves. Demons and disease and demigod rulers are the enemy of humanity (Eph 6:12).<br /><br /><b>In this Jesus is our example.</b> After his water baptism and being full of the Holy Spirit, he encounters Satan on his home turf, the dry wilderness. Jesus resists temptations and then launches out in a campaign against the work of demons in the people who come to hear him preach. Eyes begin to see, cripples walk, the dead live again. This is true holy war, one that has not ended, even today.<br /><br /><b>I would suggest that real Christianity,</b> Spirit filled Christianity, has both the power to resist temptation to sin and undo oppression of every kind. This is not a demand for perfection or performances. It is an argument that Spirit filled Christianity should be charismatic at some fundamental level. While the miraculous should never become a prerequisite for professional ministry, neither is it dispensable as a superfluous bonus. And I question whether those who actively teach a cessationist message are merely suffering a severe case of Saul’s envy of David.<br /><br /><b>Really, we need to get over ourselves</b>, and have the courage of David in regards to the miraculous. No one has to call down healing upon another unless they are so moved by the Spirit to pronounce such an invasive form of restoration. But all of us can at least can verbally admit to others that God is real and might today heal anyone among us who asks. Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-7055244557231780882015-01-13T10:29:00.000-08:002015-01-13T10:29:47.783-08:00Healing Christianty's Divides by Keeping Them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qj6TF0W0aQo/VLRfcaEP_AI/AAAAAAAAAQQ/gIwlKoRBfVQ/s1600/divided.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qj6TF0W0aQo/VLRfcaEP_AI/AAAAAAAAAQQ/gIwlKoRBfVQ/s1600/divided.jpg" height="150" width="200" /> </a>According to <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/sacred-pathways-discover-your-souls-path/gary-thomas/9780310329886/pd/329886?event=ESRCG">Gary Thomas</a> there are nine spiritual temperaments, each kind pursuing God differently, and each experiencing God uniquely. I'm not one to run to DISC profiles or temperament categories, but the concept does make sense. In fact, it might explain why there are so many factions and sects of Christianity.</div><a name='more'></a><br />Back in 1929, Richard Niebuhr wrote <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Sources-Of-Denominationalism/dp/076619342X">The Social Sources of Denominationalism</a>. </em>In it he argues that theology is not the primary difference between Christian churches. He says the real differences are economic.&nbsp;Each denomination panders to the spirituality of a particular income bracket and that this is&nbsp;wrong because it&nbsp;allows the divisions of our world to divide the church. Our diverse theologies, he contends, grow out of the concerns of our individual demographic. He even goes so far to attribute certain European wars to the social unrest over religious-economic disparity.<br /><br />According to Niebuhr, there are churches for the rich, and churches for the poor, and churches for the middle class. Is he accurate? Unequivocally, yes. Every demographic study bears this out. Systematic Theology I classes demonstrate this too. Which denominations have tended to emphasize the sovereignty of God? The reformed traditions which many prominent politicians and business leaders attend. Which traditions emphasize free will and empowerment?&nbsp;Churches of the urban poor. Which churches emphasize moral responsibility for sin and the removal of guilty? The pick-yourself-up-by-your-boot-straps middle class type of church.<br /><br />I don't think the solution is to divorce theology from our cultural situation, as if absolute truth can be erected beyond that of direct revelation. It is our perspective on our vices and problems that gives our theology pragmatic value to real everyday people. Nor is the solution to dissolve distinct denominations back into one homogenous universal Church. Trying to pretend there aren't legitimate differences is naive.<br /><br />Back to Thomas. Thomas' answer to the conflicts between the spiritual temperaments is that all avenues are legitimate and to be appreciated. The problem is not the difference. The problem is the intolerance, in both directions. Distain for the poor is as much of a problem as contempt for the rich. Worshiping with the assistance of icons may just be what the sensate doctor ordered, and icon-o-clasts should lock themselves away in a cell. Most of us will fall somewhere in between. And that's okay.<br /><br />It is good that Christianity has had so many schisms over the years. It keeps Christianity growing and evolving to meet the material needs of so many different people. What kind of spiritual unity can exist amidst such a mosaic of creeds and assumptions? How about the kind that listens to criticism from other denominations without feeling the need to be defensive. How about the kind that loves to listen to other Christian's experience of worship before we engage in apologetics. How about the kind that doesn't publicly criticize other faith traditions, but does engage in direct and friendly ecumenical dialogue and debate. Is there absolute truth? Sure, but let's not mistake the categories of our systematic theology for a new Oral Law miss held as equal with scripture.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-80643787342999592582014-12-23T14:46:00.001-08:002014-12-23T14:46:59.521-08:00Dirty Religion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kNQxjWb_pYo/VIdXH-LlnqI/AAAAAAAAAQA/r0W4gw5aLug/s1600/Trash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kNQxjWb_pYo/VIdXH-LlnqI/AAAAAAAAAQA/r0W4gw5aLug/s1600/Trash.jpg" height="200" width="160" /></a></div>I could feel Jonathan Edwards gasping in his grave. When I used to be an installer, one of the technicians asked me if I was either a religious person or a spiritual person? I don't think he could appreciate the irony of asking a Pentecostal that question.&nbsp;My guess is that he didn't like the institutionalized church that much. Edwards was a controversial Reformed pastor in New England before the colonies had split from Britain. He led the American wing of a mass cultural movement towards emotionally charged preaching and personally experiencing God in contrast to traditional ritual and sacrament. Whether we like his theology and methods or not, the movement changed American spirituality forever. Religion was considered a good thing, back then at least.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />We have inherited our understanding of personal salvation and compelling preaching from Edwards. It has become so fundamental to our thinking and practice that it is difficult for us to imagine Christian piety without this emphasis. Yet we spurn Edward's language above all. Consider the title of the book he wrote to defend the movement,&nbsp;<i>Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival of Religion</i>! It is hard for a modern Christian to even read this title with the last two words attached. To us, the word religion represents a dead, worthless, institutionalized, fossilized, and meaningless approach to God by rules and rituals. The word has evolved to represent everything that Edwards fought against. Why?<br /><br /><b>The term 'religion' and Jesus seem to be twin brothers.</b>&nbsp;The word religion was once honored and loved, but has been dragged through the mud and crucified as a criminal. The problem is that in the same way we have treated the word, so has society treated the church. The stones Christians once threw at corrupt religious hierarchy have been picked up by normal people and are being thrown at all faith communities as hateful, backwards thinking, money hungry churches bent on a jihad of starting wars and ruining the world. Our calls for reform in the Church have become calls for liberation from the Church.<br /><br /><b>Religion is a lot like marriage. Both can be wonderful.&nbsp;</b>But when things turn toxic they are a blight upon the world. For many of us, the only thing that holds us back from a deeper experience with God is the fear of the mocking labels we ourselves have put on that pursuit. We make fun of those people. We are scared of a word. We are scared of being religious. We are scared of becoming culpable with its many sins. We treat religion as if it were a diet, a passing fad.<br /><br /><b>Why can't religion be an intimate relationship with God?</b>&nbsp;Why can't church help foster that in me? Why can't the Spirit inspire us and speak through us while we participate in sacraments and services? Is religion really dead? Or am I the one that is dead on the inside?<br /><br />As my local church continues preaching through Corinthians, I hope that we can be curious and courageous explorers of the spirituality Paul assumes to be good, religion that is full of love and helpful miracles. I hope that we can leave our fears about spiritual gifts and manifestations behind along with all the choice names we have for their abuse. I hope that we can uncringe our toes and relax our tense shoulders and allow God to make use of whomever God may choose to speak of word of encouragement and let us know that God is still in our midst.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-57424665484344199402014-07-04T12:00:00.000-07:002014-07-04T12:00:00.754-07:00Structure and Organization: From Heaven or Hell? (Acts 1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wNFPXqNjX9I/U7SdPHaPx5I/AAAAAAAAAPc/NYQonjmK-8A/s1600/Orc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wNFPXqNjX9I/U7SdPHaPx5I/AAAAAAAAAPc/NYQonjmK-8A/s1600/Orc.jpg" height="179" width="200" /></a>A century ago, the founders of the Assemblies of God feared becoming a denomination. Our first General Council voted as much. Oh the irony. The word "denomination" is still a dirty word, but we have bigger fears. We fear becoming institutionalized (pun fully intended), losing our authenticity,&nbsp;and&nbsp;missing the&nbsp;experience of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, pastors&nbsp;are under increasing pressure to become less of a shepherd and more of a CEO in order to create the mythic mega-church. And this despite our congregants revulsion to corporate culture.</div><a name='more'></a><br />I appreciate these fears. I share them. The casualties of treating the church as a business are the burned and disgruntled people they produce. I'm curious as to the proportions here. As a Spirit led movement we value the kind of freedom and&nbsp;spontaneity that makes space for experiencing God and responding with the core of our being. We fear that too much structure and organization will fossilize and extinguish the vibrancy that we feel. At least one scholar agrees. Eddie Hyatt <a href="http://www.amazon.com/2000-Years-Charismatic-Christianity-pentecostal/dp/0884198723">makes that case</a> that miracles waned as the church became increasingly structured. Hyatt's book is a great survey of the Church's changing attitudes toward the miraculous, and proof that&nbsp;spiritual manifestations&nbsp;have never really vanished. Unfortunately, I believe his central thesis is wrong.<br /><br />We have mistakenly treated the Holy Spirit as an emotionally chaotic ecstasy tailored for the disenfranchised and disempowered of society, the way Robert Anderson does in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Disinherited-Making-American-Pentecostalism/dp/1565630009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1404335604&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Vision+of+the+disinherited">Vision of the Disinherited</a></em>. The Spirit's challenge to the our traditions may be an affront to the corporate powers that be, but that does not mean that <em>structure</em> is the enemy of the Spirit. The background to the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts is&nbsp;not only&nbsp;favorable to organization, Acts 1 suggests that Pentecost is dependent on it.<br /><br />Most of us skip over much of Acts chapter 1. We see little relevance between its formality and the outpouring of the Spirit in chapter 2. This is because most of us are unfamiliar with the rabbinic backgrounds to the Holy Spirit, on which&nbsp;Acts 2 plays.<br /><br />The giving of the Spirit is always <a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2012/06/acts-2-understanding-pentecost-jewish.html">associated with the giving of the law</a> (Ten Commandments) at Mt Sinai on the festival of Pentecost (Shavuot). In Rabbinic literature,&nbsp;Israel&nbsp;had to assemble&nbsp;in unity as a nation before God would give them the Torah.[1] The numbers and elections and formalities of Acts 1 play upon this notion of&nbsp;"nationhood". <br /><br />One hundred twenty people was the minimum cultural requirement for a&nbsp;group to be considered a city.[2] The majority of "cities" of the ancient world were quite small by modern terms, little more than a&nbsp;what we might consider a small rural town. There was also a cultural expectation that the minimum number of people to have a synagogue&nbsp;and leader was&nbsp;ten. One hundred twenty people, but only eleven apostles demonstrates the need for the election of another leader, which is what they do. The point is that the church has become&nbsp;a bonafide city/nation of people complete with leadership.&nbsp;They are ready for a new Torah to descend from heaven.&nbsp;This&nbsp;sets the stage for a Sinai like experience in Acts 2, full of fire, wind, and miraculous languages.<br /><br />Because the Spirit is associated with the Torah, it is the perfect capstone to the "nationhood" of the church. They have enough people, they have enough leaders, and they have God's ordained rules to live by, now inside of them. The presence of people with leaders who follow a set of instructions is a pretty good case for there being <em>structure</em> among the Spirit led church of Acts. <br /><br />One might argue that this type of Spirit led leadership is not so corporate or authoritarian, and instead organic and relational. Nothing suggests it can't be so. Otherwise we run the risk of re-arguing for the consolidation of <em>catholic</em> papal power as the Church Fathers of the Constantinian era did. I wonder if Protestants have argued that Roman Catholicism is corrupt&nbsp;for so long that we have mistakenly convinced our culture to be suspicious of all institutionalized religion. In demonizing our bothers and sisters we have&nbsp;shot our selves in the foot. Or as the Corinthian analogy goes, maybe the head.<br /><br />Jesting aside, there is reason to think that the Spirit&nbsp;<em>induces</em> this structure. Outside of Acts, we find the Spirit gifting people with the talent and wisdom to speak and lead. This is true in <a href="https://net.bible.org/#!bible/1+Corinthians+12:1">1 Corinthians 12:1-28</a> with apostles and pastors, and also of Moses, David, <a href="https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Exodus+31">the artisan commissioned to build the tabernacle</a>, and probably every other leader God has set up over the years. There is no way to get away from how God invests people with authority, as much as my post-modern, individualistic, Protestant, American self may dislike it. Maybe it makes me feel better to call them pastors rather than priests or bishops, or maybe I don't even honor them with the title pastor. Does my casualness change what they are or how they guide and influence me?<br /><br />If the biblical model is that the Spirit is given to communities in order to shape them into a coherent and unified whole,&nbsp;why do we glorify&nbsp;chaos as if it is "spiritual", and why are we so fiercely individualistic in our experience? It was God's Spirit which set up the priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the temple system. These organizations where not impervious to corruption, but this has little to do with the system and everything to do with the greed of the people in it. This greed is there whether the system is there or not. In fact, it was seen as a punishment upon God's people to have this system suspended or taken from them.<br /><br />Do God's people need more organization or less?&nbsp;Everything suggests this depends heavily on whether this organization is Spirit led. I think what the Bible advocates is a <em>giftocracy</em>, which theoretically can take many forms. My hope is that we don't demonize "big" churches merely because they are business-like and that we don't give small but emotional churches a free pass. Neither is automatically "spiritual". In fact, the evidence suggests that the Spirit is pleased to be with these churches only when they can both come together as one people of God.<br /><br />----------------<br />Notes:<br /><br />[1] <em>Derekh Eretz Rabbah,&nbsp;</em>minor tractate of the Talmud, <em>Zuta</em> XI 5. This text compares the Hebrew verb tenses of Num 33:5 and Ex 19:2. In Numbers, the verbs paired with the people are plural. Yet in Exodus the verbs paired with the people are singular. This causes the rabbi to speculate that the tenses indicates the dissention of the people in the wilderness, but their unity&nbsp;prior to receiving the Torah. This understanding seems to underline Acts 2:2.<br /><br />[2] Keener, Craig. <em>IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament</em>. IVP Press, 1993. see comments on Acts 1.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-23791120648880878492014-07-03T12:00:00.000-07:002014-07-03T12:00:00.677-07:00Double Death<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BX8yuVN-PM4/U7Mgpg-FAEI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Oeh-bcmzgvo/s1600/mirror+image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BX8yuVN-PM4/U7Mgpg-FAEI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Oeh-bcmzgvo/s1600/mirror+image.jpg" height="140" width="200" /></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BX8yuVN-PM4/U7Mgpg-FAEI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Oeh-bcmzgvo/s1600/mirror+image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BX8yuVN-PM4/U7Mgpg-FAEI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Oeh-bcmzgvo/s1600/mirror+image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a>Did the Apostle's misquote the Hebrew Bible to force it to be about Jesus' life and death? Judaism isn't the only one making this charge against Christianity. Many Christian scholars <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Doctrine-Wrong-Texts/dp/0801010888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403898592&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=The+Right+Doctrine+from+the+Wrong+Texts">wrestle</a> with the way the New Testament quotes scripture too. Is it legitimate for Matthew and Peter and John and Paul to find secondary meanings in their own religious writings? I'm less concerned with whether they can, because I don't believe they have.</div><br /><a name='more'></a><br />First, let us put aside humor and titles. Of course puns and titles play upon opposing meanings, and yes, there are jokes and sarcasm&nbsp;in the Bible. The point is that these are not ambiguous. Authors play upon the nuances they want their readers to see, and they do so explicitly and intentionally. I'm not going beyond an author's meaning when I get their joke. When an author wants to be more cryptic about their meaning, they still have AN intended meaning, and they eventually explain it. Even Jesus explained his own parables, or at least the gospels take time to do so. The point is that God wants to communicate and is trying to be understood. Anything else would really be deception.<br /><br />We are also not talking about cultural language barriers. In English, alms giving is different than forgiveness, and this is different than faithfulness. In Hebrew these are all considered acts of <i>hesed</i>, "kindness/mercy". We may think of them as separate meanings, but they would not. The same thing happens in the other direction too. The point is that a person speaking their own native tongue intends one thing by what they say. We may need to adapt this and divide it to translate, but we do not need to look beyond what an author is plainly trying to communicate. <br /><br /><b>We are really talking about the nature of prophecy and fulfillment.</b> What is prophecy? How can you tell whether something is prophetic? Who is the jury that decides it is fulfilled? These are foundational questions that affect the entire debate.<br /><br />Of course this entire debate evaporates if we permit the Apostles to be Jewish and use the same literary techniques Jews of their day were using. Today, Jews have even systematized these techniques and call it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)">PaRDeS</a>. The caveat here is that Judaism can't credibly advocate for multiple spiritualized meanings and simultaneously criticize Christianity for finding messianic ones. I wish the answer to our dilemma were this simple.<br /><br />While modern Judaism relishes in layers of interpretations, and its seeds do reach back deep within rabbinic literature, all of these tendencies occur in late Judaism. <a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2014/06/wrong-glasses.html">I have suggested</a> that Judaism's dive into philosophical and allegorical interpretations were the result of the influence of foreign powers and the diaspora across the Mediterranean. We do find <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash">midrash</a> (Jewish sermonizing) all over the New Testament, but the assumptions behind it are old school.<br /><br />Most of us think of a prophecy only as a prediction an AN event in the future. Prophecy is much broader than this, but let us focus on the small fraction of prophecy that is predictive. Every time God declares through a prophet that God will take a certain future action under certain conditions, it becomes a finger print of God's character. It speaks not just to the immediate situation. It becomes a legal precedent of how God operates in this world. It becomes a bastion of confidence in God's consistency. <b>God continually walks in the footprints God has made along the path of history</b>.<br /><br />God tends to visit God's people the same way God always has. God tends to judge cruelty and abuse with the same methods God always has. God tends to rescue and have mercy in a similar way God always has. Prophecy is not primarily prediction. Prophecy is pattern.<br /><br />Because prophecy is pattern, it is not limited to just oracles and announcements. Events and history can become patterns. Consider Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. Sure, Zechariah "prophesies" that Jerusalem's rightful king will come peacefully riding on a donkey (no war horse). But Zechariah doesn't pull this out of some mystical hat. He looks back on how Solomon assumed control of Jerusalem.<br /><br />In 1 Kings 1, Solomon's brother assumes power before he could. This is a recipe for war and bloodshed (think Game of Thrones). David puts Solomon (who's name means peace) on a mule (not a war horse) and has him parade into the city in a triumphal procession. Where did the seed for Zechariah's prophecy come from? It came from a foot print a son of David made in history, a foot print that would be repeated by a future son of David.<br /><br />Or take for example how <a href="https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+2:15">Matthew 2:15</a> quotes <a href="https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Hosea+11">Hosea 11:1</a>. Hosea is talking about what God did with the nation of Israel as a covenant son. This is not a new concept. Exodus 4:22 reads, "thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son." Keep in mind the term "son" is a legal term in a covenant relationship in the ancient near east and does not necessarily imply biology. No where is Matthew claiming that Israel is not God's covenant son. All Matthew is claiming is that the pattern has held fast. God always brings the covenantal son up from Egypt. It was true for Abraham. It was true for Israel. How much more true should it be for the king of Israel who was called "the Son of God".<br /><br />The key feature is that prophecies are never really spent. They come back over and over again. This is why I am not a fan of the term "double fulfillment". It implies prophecy will only be fulfilled twice. This is far too limiting. Any blessing said to any king of Israel can become a blessing said to the ultimate king of Israel. Any blessing said to the nation of Israel can become a blessing inherited by the representative of Israel, its king. By virtue of his office, Jesus is Israel. He relives the history of Israel. Israel's persecution is his persecution. Israel's death is his death. Israel's prophesied resurrection is his resurrection.<br /><br />Why don't I consider this subsequent fulfillment a secondary meaning? Because the second fulfillment is based on the same principle as the first fulfillment. The principle is unchanged. There is no secondary anything. My employer pays me every other Thursday. The check amounts vary by business and hours. But each check is a wage paid for the same kind of work. I don't have to uncover any new reason behind each new check on each new pay day. In the same way, I don't have to look for a different meaning every time a prophecy reoccurs. I don't need to look for an alternate meaning when I comprehend a verses' plain meaning.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-14193815751012521172014-06-27T12:00:00.000-07:002014-06-27T12:00:03.932-07:00Wrong Glasses<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JdBTT646kmc/U6s7uafbQ6I/AAAAAAAAAOw/dtRzYy69emc/s1600/glasses.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JdBTT646kmc/U6s7uafbQ6I/AAAAAAAAAOw/dtRzYy69emc/s1600/glasses.jpg" height="103" width="200" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JdBTT646kmc/U6s7uafbQ6I/AAAAAAAAAOw/dtRzYy69emc/s1600/glasses.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a>I just got new glasses, supposedly trendy looking ones. They have rectangular thick black frames, and are are a far cry from the metal round frame I had when I came from the East Coast seven years ago. My fashion manager (read wife) is very pleased. </div><br />Churches experience the same pressure to be trendy, to be relevant to culture. In most cases, this is healthy for churches. But in one particular case the early church caved to cultural pressure that I think has been a travesty felt to this day. The early church donned new glasses that changed the way they (and we) read scripture. It very literally gave them split vision.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>In my last two posts, (<a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2014/06/wisdom-many-spendored-thing-1.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2014/06/wisdom-in-corinth-and-pentecost-part-2.html">here</a>) I have already highlighted how Greek philosophy, the "wisdom" of the first century, had very different assumptions about God and life than either Paul or Judaism had. This leaves one last problem to mention, the most heinous.<br /><br />Ever read Greek mythologies in high school? Bizarre aren't they. Greek/Roman gods are plagued by the same greed, lust, and war as the people they rule. <span style="background-color: white;">Many Greek philosophers treated these Greek mythologies (ancient paganism) as infantile and useful only as allegories. I would agree.</span><br /><br />The problem happens when these Greek philosophers encounter Jewish scripture. Even when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, they did not recognize its genres, its covenant structures, or its middle-eastern code. Jewish <i>wisdom, </i>its scriptures, seemed unintelligent to its Western conquerors. Thus, Judaism experienced tremendous pressure, long before Jesus came along, to shed its <i>mythology</i> and treat its history as allegory.<br /><br />In Egypt, one such Jewish writer named Philo (a contemporary of the Apostle Paul) went through the Hebrew Bible and reinterpreted it allegorically, in order to make it palatable to the Greek philosophy of Alexandria. I believe the early church at Corinth felt the same pressure to look smart and view scripture through the lens of Greek philosophy. We have all seen what the Apostle Paul thought of Greek "wisdom" in the first several chapters of his letter to the Corinthians.<br /><br />What do you get when the church starts to interpret and preach Semitic, middle-eastern books of the Bible as if it they were Greek/Western mythologies? You get the Church Fathers, a group of non-Jewish, early church leaders who tried to make sense of Jewish scripture with the wrong lens. You get church leaders who allegorized everything that didn't make sense. And when I say they allegorized everything, I mean everything. They even allegorized allegories.[1]<br /><br />What's the problem with this? After all, didn't Judaism also look for multiple meanings and mystically derived interpretations too? Well, not all of them according to a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=WlIDtJH4u2oC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=%22Techniques+and+Assumptions+in+Jewish+Exegesis+Before%22+instone&amp;ei=NPd4Sc7dNIjcygSdm4G0Bg#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Techniques%20and%20Assumptions%20in%20Jewish%20Exegesis%20Before%22%20instone&amp;f=false">study</a> by David Instone-Brewer.[<span style="background-color: white;">2</span>] While there were segments of Judaism that did look for spiritualized meanings, there was a competing Jewish approach which treated all scripture as law, advocated for one authoritative version of the text, held to author intent, and discriminated between contradictory interpretations. In fact, I would argue that all of <a href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-interpretation">Judaism's forays into allegorical interpretation</a> were in late Judaism and came as a result of the diaspora among the Greek Mediterranean world.<br /><br />The buzz word in interfaith dialog with my Jewish friends right now is "Hebraic thinking" which is always elevated above "Greek/Western thinking." This terminology is still loose at this point, and is quickly becoming a catch all justification for all manner of personal interpretations. The argument usually goes that Hebraic/Semitic thinking is more comfortable with paradox, looks for layers of meanings, and is circular in its presentation. Meanwhile, dialectical Greek thinking takes an either-or-approach to questions, looks for one answer, and is linear in its argumentation. Since the Hebrew Bible was written in a Semitic culture, would not a Hebraic lens be more helpful than a Greek/Western one?<br /><br />Oh the irony! We have come full circle. I believe that even my Jewish friends have been seduced into Greek philosophy's approach to scripture. The worst part is that the labels have been switched to make spiritualized allegory appear more <i>Jewish</i> and the plain <i>pashat</i> reading more Western! Oy vey! Didn't allegorical interpretation in the 2nd-3rd century of the Church feed replacement theology and all sorts of anti-Semitic teaching? There is a serious problem with this method of interpretation that cuts both ways.<br /><br />It's not just my Jewish friends either. Our whole society wants scripture to be allegory. College literature classes actively teach about the "death of the author".[3] The disciplines of science and archaeology tell us that the Bible's dates and accounts are incompatible with what we find in the dirt and space. How can allegorical interpretation be anything other than an admission that our beloved texts are at face value worthless? If you don't believe this, don't do it!<br /><br />I am not knocking or denying the existence of allegory in scripture. Its authors use it widely, and its convention is straight forward. I am speaking about the travesty of using allegory as a method of interpretation. Reading everything as if it they were allegories is not how the genre's of the Bible were intended. Does reading literally miss the nuance (or beauty) of intended alleogries? Not at all.&nbsp;One of my favorite allegories is in <a href="https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Ecclesiastes+12:2" target="_blank">Ecclesiastes 12:2-7</a>. A literal interpretation of this allegory <em>notices</em> that the first verse of this chapter tells the reader that all the imagery is about growing old.<br /><br /><b>I believe that allegorizing scripture, or looking for multiple meanings, is the cheap way out.</b> It enables us to avoid wrestling with God's hard claims. It allows us to avoid the labor of historical grammatical study. It also enables all of our prejudice and biases to be brought into the text. Ignoring the author's intent enables preachers to read whatever they want to read into the Bible, and preach whatever they want to preach out of it. At that point why use the Bible at all! Use your favorite poem, or quote soap operas, or preach Oprah.<br /><br />So how does the New Testament get away with it, especially in quoting Hebrew passages about Jesus that clearly were not&nbsp;intended to be&nbsp;about Jesus? Were not&nbsp;the&nbsp;Church Fathers following a tradition&nbsp;of dual meanings&nbsp;already established by the Apostles? But these questions deserve their own post.<br /><br />--------------------------<br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />[1] Origin in some ways is the quintessential example because he advocated this method of interpretation. He wrote about the parable of the Good Samaritan this way: <br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: x-small;">The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.</span></blockquote>Origen, Homily 34.3, Joseph T. Lienhard, trans., Origen: Homilies on Mark, Fragments on Mark (1996), 138.<br /><br />[2] 1992: <em><strong>Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE</strong></em>. (Mohr &amp; Siebeck, Tübingen, Vol.30 of Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum). <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=WlIDtJH4u2oC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=%22Techniques+and+Assumptions+in+Jewish+Exegesis+Before%22+instone&amp;ei=NPd4Sc7dNIjcygSdm4G0Bg"></a></span><br /><br />[3] "Death of the author" is a tread in which students of literature ignore an author's intent and focus instead on how a community reacts to a work. It has not helped that some modern authors have valiantly acquiesced by stating their works are open to interpretation. Even if modern works are so written, ancient authors did not ascribe to this relatively new method. Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-63723601114325740022014-06-08T09:59:00.000-07:002014-06-08T09:59:15.085-07:00Wisdom in Corinth and Pentecost: Part 2<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a6BkGj1oSKA/U5EmztgmyoI/AAAAAAAAAOU/9mGsgc5zZ7c/s1600/-OWL-W~1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a6BkGj1oSKA/U5EmztgmyoI/AAAAAAAAAOU/9mGsgc5zZ7c/s1600/-OWL-W~1.JPG" height="200" width="184" /></a>Ever feel at a loss to define wisdom? Even today, Bible study leaders often&nbsp;struggle to give a simple definition for wisdom in the Bible. There is a real danger that we try to give a one-size-fits-all definition to wisdom, and then read that definition into every appearance of the word. Not wise. Wisdom meant different things to different cultures in the first century Mediterranean world, as we saw in my <a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2014/06/wisdom-many-spendored-thing-1.html">last post</a> about Greek philosophy at Corinth. It even meant different things through time among God's people.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />In Judaism, "wise" used to mean "<strong>skilled</strong>" as a master of a craft. It could be masonry, wood working, anything. Eventually a wise person came to describe a person who had "mastered" life and its secrets. In the pagan world this often meant <strong>sorcery</strong>, but in Israel it often meant a person who had "mastered" life's rules, or more specifically, God's laws about how we should live. Thus, for much of the Hebrew Bible, wisdom simply means <strong>morality</strong>. This is confirmed by doing a word search for "moral" or "morality" in the Bible. Its absence is conspicuous, but makes sense when we realize Hebrew already&nbsp;had a word it could use this way.<br /><br />This is why wisdom is so important to the book of Job. What does wisdom have to do with suffering? It may seem tangent to our ears, but to their ears, debating God's wisdom verses Job's wisdom is the same as debating God's morality verses Job's morality. Who is just? Who is culpable? In the same way, Proverbs is not a book about getting smart and intelligent as our academies pursue research and data. Proverbs is a book about getting smart about life, about developing moral character in young men, men who are prone to wreck their lives by the choices they make.<br /><br />Since this morality came to Israel through the revelation of the Torah, the word "wisdom" then came to describe both the <strong>study of the Torah</strong> and any other secrets God might reveal to humanity through <strong>prophetic experiences</strong>. For the scribes, the epitome of wisdom was scripture itself. For many Jews wisdom became charismatic inspiration. Finally, for some Jews, perfect observance of the wisdom in scripture led to the out flow of heavenly power in people's lives, manifested as <strong>miraculous gifts</strong>. For these sages "wisdom from God" was "power from God".<br /><br />It is at this point that we catch up to the Corinthian churches. In their pursuit of prestige and "wisdom" in its various ancient forms, it seems they married respectable Greek wisdom (philosophy) with the pursuit of Jewish wisdom (spiritual insight/power). Then they began to flaunt this "wisdom" against&nbsp;more primitive or simple churches. Their effort to be relevant and attractive within their culture seemed juxtaposed to the&nbsp;disgrace of&nbsp;Jesus' crucifixion.<br /><br />I find this interpretation ironic when compared to the Pentecostal movement today. While there are some churches which have an air of superiority because of the presence of the supernatural, don't most of our churches fear the supernatural precisely because we want respectability? We want to be accepted by cessationist evangelicals,&nbsp;sensible to anti-supernaturalist theologians, and credible to scientific congregants. We might not lose our soul in the process, but our spirituality is left by on the roadside.<br /><br />I do feel that Paul would commend us on the education (a more Greek sense of "wisdom") we pursue, the degrees we earn, and the books we publish. Our movement is growing up after all and I am a product of the trend toward researching widely and thinking deeply. But when our sensibility and respectability makes us look down on more emotional and charismatic churches, we have forgotten the cross of Jesus and the stigma we ourselves used to bear when we were accepted by God.<br /><br />At this point, because Paul is writing to correct a specific situation of distention between churches, I believe his emphasis on the cross of Christ is means to a behavior, not a end in itself. In other words, I don't think Paul is asking the churches to be unified <em>in order </em>to emphasize the centrality of the cross in theology (though by all accounts it should be). I think Paul is asking arrogant Christians to remember the cross <em>so that they</em> remove the divisions between them.<br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-46482883812970865092014-06-05T15:49:00.002-07:002014-06-05T19:34:18.768-07:00Wisdom, a Many Spendored Thing: 1 Corinthians 1-2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rGBr_73qcqY/U5DzOCcqkxI/AAAAAAAAAOE/7JSZKtVuirM/s1600/1985_Religulous-1-628x250.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rGBr_73qcqY/U5DzOCcqkxI/AAAAAAAAAOE/7JSZKtVuirM/s1600/1985_Religulous-1-628x250.jpg" height="79" width="200" /></a>This past week we heard the apostle Paul criticize worldly wisdom, because it somehow opposed the necessity of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is way too easy to apply Paul's language to any opposition to any conservative Christian teaching. Before we jump to apply Paul's words to modern culture wars and denominational battles, could it be useful to wonder what kind of cultural "wisdom" Paul was combating and whether we see that same old "wisdom" today? After all, ancient Greece was known for a particular kind of wisdom, that ironically all of us have heard about.</div><a name='more'></a><br />The Greek word Paul is using for wisdom is <em>sophia. </em>Love of wisdom, which in Greek is quite literally <em>philo- </em>and<em> sophia</em>, or as we call it philosophy, was prolific and specific in the Greco-Roman world. To this day, our academies teach about the impact of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and many others. Does this mean thinking deeply about life, being, and nature is wrong? Not at all. In fact the prestige of itinerant philosophers was so magnanimous in the Mediterranean world that the four gospels take pains to cast Jesus as wandering teacher followed by students. This is not an accidental or random piece of inspiration.<br /><br />So what was so bad about Greek philosophy that it would prompt Christians to ignore the cross? I can think of several items. A big one is that many Greek philosophers imagined the gods to be immovable movers, untouched by the pain in the world, incapable of responding to it, and certainly not able to endure it. A suffering God would be an oxymoron, between blissful perfection and marred imperfection.<br /><br />Another flaw of Greek philosophy was its emphasis on eloquence in oral debates where non-rational ideas were mocked into rejection. Nothing is wrong with being rational, but even to this day our academic communities thrive on mocking opposing view points into oblivion. The first doctor that advocated hand washing before surgeries was ridiculed out of a career by fellow doctors. The geologist who discovered plate tectonics was isolated by geologists for years. In other words, pre-scientific Greek philosophy was plagued by arrogant hubris, and modern science has carried on this legacy in our universities.<br /><br />Modern science has this same blind eye. Science only concerns itself with what can be observed, measured, quantified, and predicted. Science has very little it can say about God at all, either yea or nay. Is this bad? Not at all. It is just a limitation. It is bad&nbsp;when science assumes the matters on which it is mute either don't matter, or worse don't exist. It is even worse when we somehow resort to "science" and "skepticism"&nbsp;to ignore evidence whose conclusions are uncomfortable. <br /><br />I'm an extremely skeptical person about miracles. Pentecostalism has forced me to be so. That doesn't mean I have seen none, or that they don't happen. Are some psychosomatic? Of course, but not all. Are there fakes? Sure. But wouldn't it be awful if I swore off modern medicine because there were a few fake doctors looking to make a dollar playing medicine-man. <br /><br />Not only do I think the Corinthian church was plagued by a desire to be respectable within its culture (and many modern churches too), but I think the desire to look "wise" and "educated" (by an almost laughable standard), merged with a Jewish concept of "wisdom" that was volatile. Which will be what my next post will be about...<br /><div><br /></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-27994189054311542922014-05-22T20:16:00.000-07:002014-06-05T19:34:01.567-07:00The New Direction for the Pentecostal Movement<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PUfIODlb2ZY/U368bRyvpRI/AAAAAAAAANw/-4cK1Pco0CY/s1600/baby+bath+in+sink.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PUfIODlb2ZY/U368bRyvpRI/AAAAAAAAANw/-4cK1Pco0CY/s1600/baby+bath+in+sink.jpg" height="97" width="200" /></a>My wife is going to give birth to our second child sometime this week, a boy. All the signs are there.&nbsp;We get to try our hand yet again at nurturing a tiny&nbsp;infant. It puts us at an interesting crossroads. Even though we are young parents, we are not new parents and we get to reflect, refine, and redo some of our parenting techniques.</div><a name='more'></a><br /><br />At the same time, the Assemblies of God turned 100 years old this past April, and the modern Pentecostal Movement as is well into&nbsp;its second century. Our umbrella is much bigger than it used to be and I wonder what we might do differently as we seek God? We are still a young movement, and have made our share of mistakes, but we are not the new kid on the block either. Are our core values still the same, and should we still pursue them in the same way? What is it going to take for our movement to progress to its next stage of development and maturity?<br /><br />Simultaneously, at church we are about to embark on a voyage of&nbsp;preaching through&nbsp;Paul's first letter&nbsp;to the&nbsp;Corinthians. This book is all about a very charismatic church finding balance between the supernatural and common sense, between ecstatic experiences and practical morality. I'm excited to go through it with fresh eyes, a vulnerable heart, and scholarly resources.<br /><br />I think that we will find that the way forward for our movement is really a step back into the era before Pentecostalism, into the Holiness Movement. Not that purity leads to a Holy Spirit filled life, but that the driving force of the Spirit is always toward obedience to God.&nbsp;The theologians may&nbsp;argue whether this should be called "empowerment for mission" or "covenant initiation" (and I think this debate is worth wild), but at the end of the day the Spirit empowers us to be what God wants us to be and do what God wants us to do. The Holy Spirit is the law of God branded on our hearts, the covenant of God written into our DNA.<br /><br />In the past, in order to differentiate ourselves from other mainline denominations, we took great care to define what and when and how and why the Baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs. In the future, I hope that we move beyond these preliminaries and begin to&nbsp;develop our capacity to live out what our experience compels us to transform. That we become obedient to the Spirit that we proclaim. Not measured by how far the message spreads, or how many churches are started, or how many attend, or how many speak in the tongues of angels. Measured rather by our ability to make hard choices that affect our morality and purity. Choices that affect whether we reflect the character of God and live up to being called God's holy people.<br /><br />Our church is full of Christians burnt out on revival meetings, Christians that are post-modern, post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical, and post-labels. I hope going through Corinthians becomes an opportunity for our church to function as a microcosm of the larger movement. I hope it becomes an opportunity for us to open some closets, air some dirty laundry, and wash that laundry rather than throwing it out.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-91714774541967626292013-12-30T17:53:00.000-08:002013-12-30T17:57:18.071-08:00Journey into Judaism - part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BxXn9egrcqs/UsIjSiFr7UI/AAAAAAAAAMI/u4tgigfv1bE/s1600/book+cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BxXn9egrcqs/UsIjSiFr7UI/AAAAAAAAAMI/u4tgigfv1bE/s200/book+cover.jpg" width="132" /></a></div>"We have lost our native son" said Rabbi David Zaslow at a interfaith talk. He was speaking of Jesus, to a room of mostly Jews, but also a few Christians and converts to Judaism. His talk was provacative, humourous, and riviting. I can see why many of the Jews that know him are so keen on interfaith dialogue and study. And so I have embarked on a journey into his new book, <em>Jesus First Century Rabbi, </em>a more digestable version of his previous <em>Roots and Branches</em>.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br />In both his talk and his written introduction R. Zaslow spoke of the role English translations have played in the tension between the two communities. I'm very curious how Zaslow will handle these translation differences and by by what authority he will appeal. Since translations are merely interpretations of the original documents, can we legitimately have different versions and both be correct? Will the Hebrew definition triumph over more modern ones? Or will translations become windows into various shades of possible meanings?<br /><br />Down deep I want him to feel the freedom to critque modern Christian translations. To say, "a better translation here might be ..." or "a less offensive way of saying the same thing would be ...." Perhaps interfaith dialogue is too respectful to offer such insights. I hope not.<br /><br />I have the sense that Zaslow will critque Greek dialectical thinking (either it means this or that, but not both) as a lens to understanding scripture. But I fear that his version of Hebraic thinking will devolve into a license to read any possible Hebrew meaning into scripture. Just because Jewish scripture utilizes Hebraic thought does not mean every word uses its full semantic range in every individual instance.<br /><br />And if he should assert that the Hebrew may be legitimately interpreted in different but equally valid ways, how then will Rabbinic Judaism discriminate against messianic interpretations of their own texts, especially when done so by early Jews? Sure, I know he wants Christians to appreciate an interpretive side of scripture (and Jesus) we have not been able to see without Jewish eyes and hearts and memories. But I am interested in how and if he will be able to keep the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus separate.<br /><br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-67845324053825545012013-12-11T14:06:00.002-08:002013-12-11T14:08:18.890-08:00Is Jesus A Tree Hater: Mat 21:19<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oRLxhegtzwQ/UpOvLWwaT3I/AAAAAAAAAL0/GtpiBbHreRU/s1600/withered+tree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oRLxhegtzwQ/UpOvLWwaT3I/AAAAAAAAAL0/GtpiBbHreRU/s200/withered+tree.jpg" width="200" /></a> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Once Jesus cursed a tree for not having fruit and it withered down to its roots. He did so despite it not being the season for figs. Does this seem a little harsh? A least a little petty? We love when Jesus heals the sick and feeds the masses. But Jesus cursing? How do we revere or emulate an angry Jesus? The answer has a lot to do with corrupt institutionalized religion. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><a name='more'></a> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">First of all, fig tree leaves come <em>after</em> its first round of fruit.[1] Jesus is not upset for a tree because its fruit was out of season. Jesus is upset that the leaves falsely suggested the presense of fruit.<br /><br /><strong>Jesus is not speaking to a tree.</strong> We have to get this. Jesus is speaking to a symbol of the temple, indeed of the nation itself.[2] Jesus has just "cleansed" the temple by kicking out currency exchangers and sacrifice sellers and calls them thieves. The false pretenses of the fig tree is no different than the corruption found in the flowering, lush Herodian temple of the time. The cursing of the one is the cursing of the other. The two passages are put next to each other purposely so we would see the connection between the two.<br /><br /><strong>Why does Jesus talk about faith</strong> that moves mountains here if the lesson is about judgement on the temple? But the lesson is not about any mountain. The text tips us off that something very specific is in view when Jesus says, "THIS mountain". There is only one mountain in Jerusalem famous enough for everyone listening to assume it immediately, Mount Zion, on which sat the temple.[3]<br /><br /><strong>Many have suggested</strong> that the sacrificial system itself was an evil that needed to be ended in favor of receiving forgiveness through Jesus. There are several problems with this line of thinking. </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial, font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div style="margin-left: 1em;"><strong>1) </strong>God is the one who commanded the temple to be built and designed its policies and procedures. God may have temporarily adapted and modified ancient world forms of worship, but in so doing they recieved God's approval. Treating the temple system as a passing form of worship does not do justice to Jesus' anger at the first century temple. Something was wrong in the temple.<br /><br /><strong>2)</strong> God had already destroyed the temple once before six centuries earlier. If God was progressively revealing something about the nature of worship, God would not have commanded that it be rebuilt, nor would its rebuilding have been such a joyous occasion.<br /><br /><strong>3)</strong> The first time it was destroyed it was because of the unfaithfulness of the nation's leaders, not because they were carrying out the duties God assigned. There is no other reason to assume the destruction spoken by Jesus is anything different.<br /><br /><strong>4)</strong> In the absense of ritual sacrifice, God accepted simple prayer and heartfelt repentance. Daniel's famous prayer of confession and repentance on behalf of the nation, even while the temple lay desolate, is testimony to this fact.[4] Viewing the sacrificial ritual as the only means of atonement is an overly simplisitic view of the Hebrew Bible.</div><br />The problem with the temple wasn't that it utilized animal sacrifice,[5] but that its leaders did so in such a way to fleece its worships and offend penitent seekers. Fourty years after Jesus predicted the temple's demise, The Roman army besieged Jerusalem and leveled the temple.<br /><br /><strong>What is the application for today</strong> if the temple has already been destroyed? Every act of God reveals God's character and expectations. It forms a consistent pattern that extends to similar circumstances. Whenever the institionalized church begins to resemble the corruption of the first century temple, we stand in the same predicament. If God did not spare the temple, why would God spare a church that does the same?[6] <br /><br /><strong>Nothing sickens my gut worse than</strong> ministers who abuse the vulnerable. It might be a tele-evangelist soliciting funds with empty promises of healing, or celibate priests who scar kids in the worst way possible. This passage is about ministers who steal tithes and offerings and run to the next church. This passage is about a system so offensive that new visitors can’t bring themselves to turn toward God and pray. Can we all agree that corrupt religion is a problem? Can we agree that it deserves to be judged by God? <br /><br /><strong>I love the church</strong>, but when it begins to resemble something Jesus cursed, something rotten to the core, there’s a problem. Jesus is asking you and me to name it and have the faith that what we say about it has the power to make it crumble. If God did not spare the temple, why would God spare a church that does the same?<br /><br /><strong>Jesus is not asking us to yell at our problems</strong>, or bills, or depression, or disease. This is not about complaining to a minister that their sermon is too long, or that the carpet is the wrong color. Nor is this about Jesus being upset with me if I’m not a good, spirit filled, “fruitful” Christian (while this may be true). All of these common applications cheapen Jesus intent. Jesus is telling us to do something much tougher, something that takes much more courage. This passage is about speaking truth to power, corrupt religious power.<br /><br />-----------<br /><div style="text-align: center;">Notes:</div><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Fig trees are polinated exclusivly by the fig wasp. In order to jump start the polination process each year the fig tree puts out "early" fruit to entice the wasps to enter some blossoms and lay eggs. These early figs are not known for being large or tasty, but some do eat them.<br /><br />[2]&nbsp;In several places in the Hebrew Bible, Israel is pictured as aplant which is judged by God for not producing its crop (like Jer 11:16 and Ezek 15:6). Using this same analogy, Isaiah 5 is beautiful&nbsp;parable about a vineyard which God plants and tends. In the middle of this vineyard God erects a watchtower and waits for sweet grapes to grow. Instead only bitter grapes are produced. So God decides to “break down its walls,” “let animals trample it,” “and let it become overgrown with wild plants.” In searing revelation, the prophet interprets this parable saying, “The nation of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. The people of Judah are his pleasant garden.” To ancient Jews, the central watchtower could evoke images of only one thing, Judaism's most central structure, the temple itself. No one would miss the connotation the miraculous death of a fruitless tree would have had among a people pictured as God’s garden.<br /><br />[3] Synoptic parallels tie mountain uprooting and tree cursing together. This demonstrates that the two teachings are linked in the minds of the gospel writers. Compare Mat 17:20; 21:21; Mark 11:22-23; Luke 17:6.<br /><br />[4] Daniel 9:4-19. There are hints of forgiveness based on heartfelt prayer and repentence throughout the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 51:16-17; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8.<br /><br />[5] The real reason we tend to pit Jesus against the sacrificial system is that we are inherently prejudice against forms of worship with which we are unfamiliar. We are offended at its viceral aspects and need to justify our non-use.&nbsp;A better perspective of Jesus' critques of the temple are as refinements of an inherently good system. This is the spirit of Malachi 3:1-4, the goal of which is that offerings will be done with righteousness and be accepted by God.&nbsp; <br /><br />[6] Romans 11:17-21; Hebrews 12:25</span><br /> </span> <br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-29076761727335984162013-11-14T16:11:00.000-08:002013-11-14T16:11:35.960-08:00Excluding the Sick and Mamed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b_IYyzxd2R4/UoQFPwm2_uI/AAAAAAAAALg/Yxdy2RZBFho/s1600/sickchild.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b_IYyzxd2R4/UoQFPwm2_uI/AAAAAAAAALg/Yxdy2RZBFho/s200/sickchild.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>Red spots. My three year old son was covered in them when he woke up this past weekend. Ultimately we kept him home from church. Did we jepordize his salvation by excluding him from the redeemed community? Doubtful. Which made me rethink God's laws in the original Covenant about excluding the sick and mamed from the temple. Were these laws imperfect and temporary because they limited access to God? Did God only accept the prayers of the sick after Jesus? Or were these laws just good common sense (then and now) for policy at a public butchery/resturant?<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><strong>As preachers</strong>, we need to admit that too often we are as ill equipped in the Hebrew Bible as our audience. The temple, its viceral bloodiness, its frequent corruption, and its endless rules, none of which are observed today, become the whipping boy of people selling the need for Jesus.<br /><br />Sure, Jesus condemned the temple leadership of the time and prophesied its destruction. But was this because some of God's laws were flawed? I have serious reservations about the self contradictory nature of this thinking. Rather, the greed laden implementation of these God given laws subverted their intended inclusive purpose.<br /><br /><strong>So why exclude the sick</strong> and leporous from worship at the temple in the first place? How about to stop the spread of disease. If it is not fair for me to quote Jesus, "let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them," when the church nursery attendent refuses my mucus dripping child, then it is also not fair to quote Jesus against the laws his Father set up. Remember, Jesus didn't tell the leper to walk into the Holy of Holies as a leper. Jesus healed the leper. And even then Jesus didn't tell the healed leper to barge into the Holy of Holies.<br /><br /><strong>Why exclude the mamed</strong> from service as priests? How about the same reason the airforce doesn't hire blind pilots. Or the same reason no one at church would want to hire me as a cook, unless they could choke down badly cooked food. It simply has to do with the job description. To participate in the technical and exceptional activities of the temple, cutting wood, moving carcases, butchering and gutting animals, rendering legal decisions for people, all while maintaining a degree of sanitation, took both physical prowess and mental sharpness. Moreover, even a Levite who didn't make the cut (no pun intended) was still considered a Levite and a child of God.<br /><br /><strong>Here is our fundamental mistake</strong>: We mix up the heavenly temple, which we all have access to via Jesus, with the earthly temple, to which not everyone should have access. One temple is coming and indeed is still being built. The other is an earthly model, subject to physical boundries and limitations. The temple is basically a large resturant, and its basic rules of sanitation are good to have.<br /><br />The euphoria we experience when we sing together in worship in God's presence was never limited to the physical temple nor did it only come about after Jesus. God's presence has never been limited to the temple (See Solomon's temple dedication prayer). Heaven follows God.<br /><br /><strong>Then why do we need Jesus?</strong> Jesus changes people into true worshippers by changing our heart condition and inclining it toward God. The barrior between us and God has never been a curtain hanging in an archway. The barrior is my own unfaithfulness. God is already a forgiving God, but Jesus can infuse me with the Holy Spirit which fundamentally changes my loyalty and fidelty, my desire for God and ability to obey God.<br /><br />Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-37641039658021812432013-04-14T17:43:00.000-07:002013-04-14T17:44:49.132-07:00Mat 13: The Pearl of Great Price - the poor<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXDeEWEPlXM/UWtDekQSdEI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/iDpjVqw4_vk/s1600/margarita.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXDeEWEPlXM/UWtDekQSdEI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/iDpjVqw4_vk/s200/margarita.jpg" width="131" /></a>After translating this parable I'll never look at margaritas the same way.[see verse 45, the Greek word for pearl] In all seriousness though, what is this pearl supposed to represent, and what is Jesus recommending we actually do here about the Kingdom of God? Asking these simple yet profound questions puts us a lot closer to the truth here than one might suspect. This entire chapter, including the story about Jesus' family immediately preceding and following are all held together by a single thought, a single application.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br />First, consider both the beauty and&nbsp;deliberateness of the way the topics discussed are organized. Almost every scene has a twin. Jesus' family is <i>standing</i>&nbsp;(notice the unusual Greek tense here) outside, but aren't his true family. Likewise, the crowd is <i>standing</i>&nbsp;(same tense) on the shore while Jesus speaks to them in cryptic parables. First Jesus explains the parable of the four soils, then he explains the parable of the wheat and tears. Twice it says that his use of parables fulfills scripture. The parable of the mustard seed is paired with the parable of the permeating yeast. The parable about <i>selling everything</i> for a hidden treasure is mirrored by <i>selling everything</i>&nbsp;in the parable of the sought after pearl. Even the angels who separate the good from the evil in the parable of the wheat and tears are repeated again in the parable of the net that catches both good and bad fish. Finally, we come full circle again to a mention of Jesus' family, in the mouth of those from his hometown who scoff at his wisdom and take offense at what he says.<br /><br />This entire section is a unified whole, talking about the same thing - the way we listen to Jesus. It challenges us in whether we lean in and ask for&nbsp;explanations, or whether we are content to be standing on the shore with the crowd who gets confusing parables, scratching their heads in consternation. The crowd was a stones throw from Jesus, but miles from understanding him. We even get to see an entire town listen to Jesus and take offense at him for no other reason that they were familiar with him. Think soil. They thought they knew him and therefore could not bring themselves to accept his message. And what does the text say of them? Few miracles could be done for them.<br /><br />But what I would like to chew on for a moment is the "selling everything" in two of these parables. We know that Jesus on at least one occasion told a rich man to "sell everything, give it to the poor, and then follow him." We also know that in the book of Acts a married couple sold their property and purportedly gave <i>all</i> the money to the apostles. We also know that those following Jesus around the country had little need for their homes while they traveled. Before we pour out half this strong drink, and let its heat grow tepid before it touches our tongue, what if Jesus was seriously suggesting that people embrace his kingdom by cashing out of this world's&nbsp;monetary&nbsp;system, literally?<br /><br />How's that seed growing? Do we find ourselves wrestling like the soils in these parables do with the seed they&nbsp;receive? Maybe we should be. In the rest of the Bible we find Christians who have church in their homes, who earn and spend money, who support families and ministries simultaneously. Obviously there is more here than meets the eye. Am I suggesting that we all give everything to the poor? No. But what I'm fearful of is that we become so fearful of the loss of our money that we no longer mention the ideal of discipleship that Jesus set. A semblance of it is retained in Roman&nbsp;Catholicism in the vow of poverty taken by priest who become&nbsp;wholly&nbsp;dependent&nbsp;on the church for&nbsp;sustenance&nbsp;and wholly committed to its service.<br /><br />The way we listen affects how much God ever explains to us. I'm challenged by this parable to dig deeper into my studies of what Jesus meant and to spend more of my resources on the poor. It's one thing to say that I'm sold out for Jesus. It's quite another to have nothing but Jesus. The wallet which does not invest in this world has a heart fixed upon another world, another kingdom, a kingdom worth every cent and cell we possess.Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-91503899244031519122013-03-26T16:43:00.000-07:002013-03-26T16:44:35.533-07:00Homosexual Marriage: A brief to the U.S. Supreme Court<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DO01sgZIcEs/UVIxZTJ0KvI/AAAAAAAAAJs/3ZHYCYrC4eo/s1600/same-sex-marriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DO01sgZIcEs/UVIxZTJ0KvI/AAAAAAAAAJs/3ZHYCYrC4eo/s200/same-sex-marriage.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div>[Opinion] Should the government recognize homosexual marriage? Sure. But it should also stop preforming marriages all together, for both homosexual and heterosexuals.</div><div><br /></div>I'm getting really tired of people using the&nbsp;argument&nbsp;that marriage is for procreation against same-sex marriage. Are we all such religious prudes that we have never read "Song of Solomon" in the Bible? There is lots of "grinding the wheat," "plowing the field", "climbing the palm tree", "grabbing its fruit" and drinking from her "full cup" in there, and painfully little about giving birth.<a name='more'></a><div><br /></div><div>That said, marriage as a legal institution is functionally dead in the US. With the advent of no-fault divorce, the teeth of the covenant&nbsp;arrangement&nbsp;has been kicked out. The rise of gender equality further confuses covenant protection. Ancient marriage covenants were designed to provide financial protection for&nbsp;vulnerable and abuse-able women. But when women are just as economically empowered to enter college and obtain high caliber careers, which party <i>needs</i>&nbsp;protection from the other? [I would argue both]</div><div><br /></div><div>But the major conflict here is not about the definition of marriage, or even marriage&nbsp;eligibility. The major cultural conflict here is the loss of marriage as covenant before god, and the rise of marriage as a contract before Government. Covenants are made before a spiritual higher power and are enforced by that power, to use our fear of&nbsp;retribution to validate our guarantee&nbsp;to another. Contracts are made before mortals, who can only police them using mortal means.</div><div><br /></div><div>Which brings me to my personal legal suggestion to the Supreme Court. Since no U.S. justice actually attempts to enforce the marriages they preform, how can they properly be called 'marriage'? No local, state, or federal official should be so pompous as to 'marry' any two people, heterosexual or otherwise. Throw the term marriage back to the people themselves, since it is a social construct, and since this is devolving into a copyright war over a branded label, a label which no office created and upon which no court may infringe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let the government enforce what it is good at enforcing, contracts. If two individuals begin trusting themselves so thoroughly to each other that they become vulnerable and thus want the government to ensure certain rights,&nbsp;benefits, responsibilities, and liabilities, then let them petition the government (not religion) and receive such services. Just don't act like such a human agreement is what marries individuals to each other.</div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, some people who marry, whether they do so before a priest or a clown, will also go to city hall to procure some sort of prenuptial agreement. While other people who marry, may choose not to attach further legal or inheritance benefits to their relationship.</div><div><br /></div><div>But if anyone is interested what the foremost scholar on marriage and divorce in the Bible says on the matter of homosexuality, I recommend <a href="http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualSermons/NotNatural/_Sermon.htm" target="_blank">Instone-Brewer</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-45446034731664806572012-12-13T23:33:00.000-08:002012-12-13T23:39:58.023-08:00Acts 2: Understanding Pentecost: "Normal" in Acts? (Part 3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-psiC3c3OfBU/UMrIqDK8w7I/AAAAAAAAAJE/lrhOVZi1EBU/s1600/normal+cows+define.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-psiC3c3OfBU/UMrIqDK8w7I/AAAAAAAAAJE/lrhOVZi1EBU/s200/normal+cows+define.jpg" width="193" /></a></div>First I must make fun of myself, my post-evangelical community, and my burnt out Pentecostal schoolmates for looking for something "normal" in the Book of Acts. Can anything in the Bible be considered "common place" or "acceptable" by rational modern society? Really?<br /><div><br /></div><div>But our insecurities and inadequacies about how an authentic experience with the Holy Spirit should look are not unique to the average church attender. These same fears bleed over into academic debate among the best scholars.[1] They even become&nbsp;arguments&nbsp;between entire denominations. So rest assured, you are not the only one feeling defensive over whether your experience (or lack thereof) passes the scrutiny of a not so nebulous spiritual establishment.<br /><a name='more'></a></div><div><br /></div><div>While the Bible does not intend to answer all of our modern questions, getting to the bottom of why&nbsp; Luke even mentions the Holy Spirit is very possible. Until we understand why the Holy Spirit is important to the purpose of Acts we will not know what was meant to be emulated.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many people approach the Book of Acts as if its <i>purpose</i> is to be a history book of early church growth which we must replicate. We want Luke to be an unbiased researcher and observer of facts for facts sake. We picture him as a news reporter or journalist giving us the play-by-play daily life of the church. History, however, is not the <i>purpose</i>&nbsp;of Acts, it is its literary form or genre.</div><div><br /></div><div>While scholars are more careful (a little anyway) to nuance the difference between genre and purpose, the mistake that many scholars make is to prioritize the theology behind the history as the purpose of the book. To be sure, Luke does have a theology that he is building his narrative upon, but we are mistaken if we think that his end goal is for us to derive a list of doctrines. Accepting the truth of the gospel about Jesus does take a prominent role in Acts, but in every chapter Luke hints at a specific church problem.<br /><br />Scholars are used to describing the theology of the open letters of the New Testament as 'occasional' or 'situational' in that they address specific circumstances in specific churches and are not exhaustive theological treatises. In the letters which Paul writes, he mentions a fraction of his theology. The little bit that we do get he employs to address specific problems and practices in the early church. <br /><br />The problem in Acts is a controversial practice which shapes, colors, and indeed determines every detail that Luke mentions. It is widely known that ethnically the early church was predominantly Jewish and that very quickly this changed as Gentiles flooded into the church. Here we might be tempted to understand Luke's purpose as<i> </i><i>documenting</i> this transition, and some have.[2] But Luke is not merely <i>documenting</i> the acceptance of Gentiles. We start to see half the story when we realize that Luke is <i>defending</i> it. The rest comes into perspective when we realize that he is defending it from believers in the church! There was enough Jewish nationalism within the 1st century church that the missionary efforts of Philip, Peter, and Paul all among Gentiles were not allowed. </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>My proposal here is that Acts, despite is historical <i>form </i>is actually just as 'occasionally' motivated as the rest of the New Testament epistles. In other words, there is an on-the-ground problem he is writing about. Luke draws upon his larger theology to address a controversial missionary practice in the church. Entering into this debate is the <i>purpose</i>&nbsp;of the Book of Acts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Before I delve into how Luke wears his purpose on his sleeve we need to value this as the <i>inspired</i>&nbsp;message for us today.&nbsp;The big take away from all this should be that once we figure out <i>how</i>&nbsp;Luke uses his pneumatology in real life practical terms, we should be constrained to utilize <i>his</i>&nbsp;statements about the Spirit in the same way he does. I believe that as we investigate this debate that we will find it is far from dead. It is relevant today.</div><div><br /><br /></div><div>Notes:</div><div><br /></div><div>[1]&nbsp;Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts. Hendrickson, 1996. This is a great example of a great critical scholar who seriously engages and challenges Pentecostals and Evangelicals.<br /><br />[2] Even Gordon Fee slips into this trap, "Although Luke's 'broader intent' may be a moot point for some, it is a defensible hypothesis that he was trying to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, worldwide phenomenon form its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit was ultimately responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone."<i> Gospel and Spirit</i>. Hendrickson, 91. </div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-48683090304585392192012-10-26T13:04:00.000-07:002012-10-26T13:04:39.015-07:00Mat 10: Holy War Done Right<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2rrVHLNz7N4/UIjPj4GhffI/AAAAAAAAAIs/tNzxQ9QCokw/s1600/healing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2rrVHLNz7N4/UIjPj4GhffI/AAAAAAAAAIs/tNzxQ9QCokw/s200/healing.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>When someone mentions "holy war," what comes to mind? Corrupt wars started by religion? Wars fought for religious reasons? The Crusades of medieval Europe? Jihad? There is little&nbsp;tolerance in modern civil society for such brutish images. Jesus' offers a very different picture of holy war in Matthew 10.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />It was not long ago that Billy Graham would hold stadium sized meetings called "crusades" intent on a having a "campaign" of evangelistic activity. Similarly, written into the hymns of the past century are lyrics exhorting "ye Christian soldier". Even popular charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army were founded amid the birth of Methodism in England.<br /><div><br />In peaceful America, where we don't fear invasion by a foreign power, such militant images work. Abroad, however, they make missionary endeavor very difficult. Military intervention has soured many cultures against anything "Christian" (aka western) that smacks of dominion.<br /><br />When we&nbsp;dissociate ourselves from militant language,&nbsp;an unfortunate casualty is biblical interpretation. When the text is trying to describe the spread of the gospel in the language of ancient holy war we run the risk of missing it entirely. The presence of militant language in scripture may offend us so dearly that we may be tempted to ignore it completely. The travesty of it all is that Matthew 10 is an example of holy war done right, where the enemies are demons and disease rather than people, where God does all the fighting while we sit back and watch the miraculous, where the people involved in the conflict are targets of love rather than objects of violence.<br /><br />Where in Matthew 10 is this military language? It's buried in Jesus' obscure instructions in verse 9 and 10, "Do not take gold, silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for the journey, or an extra tunic, or sandals or staff, for the worker deserves his provisions." While at first&nbsp;appearance&nbsp;these commands might seem designed to keep the apostles dependent on God rather than their own resources, there is actually something much deeper behind Jesus' words.<br /><br />When we compare these instructions to rabbinic literature, we find out something very interesting. Alfred Edersheim, a converted Jew, brings a missing perspective when he writes:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Again, the directions about not taking staff, shoes, nor money-purse, exactly correspond to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-precincts with staff, shoes (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle. The symbolic reasons underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably the same: to avoid even the appearance of being engaged on other business...."[1].</blockquote>Here we see that Jesus prescribes the apostles wear temple appropriate garb while there are on mission. Why? There was only one group that was required by law to follow temple holiness code outside of the temple -- the army.<br /><br />Israel's army, according to scriptural instruction, moved with God when they traveled. As a consequence, any law that pertained to temple purity also applied to the army. This simple association prevented several war&nbsp;atrocities including rape and unrestrained&nbsp;pillaging. In Hebrew scripture, David and the soldiers under him are&nbsp;specifically highlighted for&nbsp;always keeping ceremonial cleanliness while at war.[2]<br /><br />The easily missed yet important connection here is that the apostles are sent out as an army, an army with the very presence of God. By walking into a town dressed in temple appropriate garb, the apostles would visibly communicate that God was with them, that they were on spiritual business, and that God was conquering true uncleanness and demonic oppression.<br /><br />Should we flagrantly taut such violent imagery today? Certainly not. But we should be aware of it, and take it's lesson to heart. The&nbsp;proclamation of the gospel is spiritual holy war, a war fought without guns and without murder. Such a fight is impossible with the miraculous intervention of God.<br /><br />If our gospel presentation has no healing offered or delivered, perhaps God does not travel with us. If God does not move with us, then it deserves to be asked whether our ministry has the "goods" offered in the "good" news.&nbsp;Does every ministry need to have frequent miraculous&nbsp;healings associated with it? Perhaps not. But if there is no awareness of it, nor expectation of it, nor offer of it, then the salvation we teach has become so&nbsp;spiritualized that it is no longer any earthly good.&nbsp;Such a "salvation" by faith through the forgiveness of sins is in reality only half the gospel, not the "full" gospel.&nbsp;Jesus' message deals with the whole person, conquering the real world injustice of the devil.<br /><br />Any doctor or philanthropist can send material relief to the suffering, and in scripture God's people are commanded to do this too. But let's us not mistake the compassion within the heart of God that we are to emulate and communicate to the suffering of the world with the power of God's presence that is to accompany those who proclaim the gospel of life to the oppressed. It is just this miraculous element that separates Jesus' followers from every other "good" and "moral" relief effort that other human made religions endeavor toward.&nbsp;Let's get back to the raw gospel that Jesus commanded his apostles to spread, that heaven is drawing close to our world, indeed breaking through to it.<br /><br />There is no "cook book" through which miraculous healings and exorcisms may be preformed. Only being&nbsp;commissioned&nbsp;by Jesus, and obeying his command can accomplish the impossible. We do not believe that Jesus is far away, but active today in the lives of those who follow his teaching, who have committed themselves to him.<br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />1. <i>Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</i>, 1:643<br /><br />2.&nbsp;1 Sam 21:4-5</div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-73801677985833688662012-10-15T11:37:00.001-07:002012-10-15T12:43:33.719-07:00Mat 9:20 Touching the Fringe of Jesus' Garment...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EQLEoOK_pSI/UHxM4z7V9UI/AAAAAAAAAIU/pq_4_F2h3-Y/s1600/jewish-tallit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="126" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EQLEoOK_pSI/UHxM4z7V9UI/AAAAAAAAAIU/pq_4_F2h3-Y/s200/jewish-tallit.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Why does the lady in this story think that the edge of Jesus' cloak has the power to heal? Her malady was of course a source of shame in her culture, but it appears that societal secrecy may not have been her only motivation.&nbsp;By dissecting her thought process, (rare in Jewish literature) the text emphasizes that her touch was not random, but premeditated on some cultural idea.&nbsp;Later in Mat 14:36 (and also Mark 6:56) we see loads of people specifically seeking out the fringe of Jesus' garment. Jesus obliges, and of course it works, but why? The answer to this miracle, as it always does, runs deep into the pages of the Hebrew Bible.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />When we trace the Greek word for the "edge"<sup><a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1</a></sup>&nbsp;or hem of Jesus' garment back through scripture we find two Hebrew words, which must be treated as near synonyms: "tassel"<sup><a href="#fn2" id="ref2">2</a></sup>&nbsp;and "wing".<sup><a href="#fn3" id="ref3">3</a></sup>&nbsp;Are there any passages in the Hebrew Bible that predict anything in particular about the <i>tassels</i>&nbsp;or <i>wings</i> of messiah, by either of these words? This second Hebrew word takes on special significance in Malachi 4:2 where "a righteous sun will rise with healing in its&nbsp;<i>wings....</i>"<sup><a href="#fn4" id="ref4">4</a></sup> Could this have been understood to predict that messiah would have healing power in his tassels?<br /><br />It would be too easy for us to read Christian theology into Malachi&nbsp;with twenty-twenty hindsight. Was this passage legitimately understood as a messianic prediction by any Jews of the time? It seems there are at least three confirmations that some ancient Jews read it this way.<br /><br />The first hint is in the Targums (the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). These loose paraphrases of scripture into the street language of the day (starting around the time of the exile to Babylon), often contain clarifications, interpretations, and even applications embedded into its translation. In the Hebrew version&nbsp;of Malachi 4:2 for example,<sup><a href="#fn5" id="ref5">5</a></sup>&nbsp;the word for sun is ambiguous in its definiteness. It could read "the sun" or "a sun". The Aramaic Targum of this verse, however, clarifies this ambiguity by adding the definite article, "the sun". This slight change hints that a fulfillment by a specific individual might be in view.<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U-sd4HyumOY/UHxL7elh_XI/AAAAAAAAAIM/KDi7Gm0ldzg/s1600/Assyrian+winged+disk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U-sd4HyumOY/UHxL7elh_XI/AAAAAAAAAIM/KDi7Gm0ldzg/s1600/Assyrian+winged+disk.jpg" /></a>The second is in archaeology of the time. It is a very common engraving during the Persian period to have a winged sun-disk, where the sun's rays are portrayed as feathers shining in all directions. These kind of images are even found among Hebrew culture, where we have a coin with a winged scarab pushing a sun disk with the inscription, "Belonging to Hezekiah, (son of) Ahaz, king of Judah."<sup><a href="#fn6" id="ref6">6</a></sup>. In Babylon, this winged disk often appeared with the image of a ruler (or god) either on or in the sun disk. Since a winged sun is often culturally associated with a ruler, there is good reason to think that the winged sun of Malachi was intended as a cultural reference to the king of Judah, known to us by the word messiah.<br /><br />The third and more explicit confirmation is in a 9th century Jewish commentary on the book of Exodus, Shemot Rabbah. This rabbinic author certainly saw the winged sun of Malachi as a messianic prediction:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-size: x-small;">“Moses asked: ‘Will they remain in pledge for ever?’ God replied: ‘No, only until the sun appears’, that is, till the coming of the Messiah; for it says, But unto you that fear My name will the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings.”<sup><a href="#fn7" id="ref7">7</a></sup></span> </blockquote>From three different angles, rabbinic, archaeology, and the Aramaic Targum, Malachi's winged sun is seen as an individual ruler. Seeing this passage as such requires no later Christianized interpretation.<br /><br />The suspicion that this healing is particularly messianic is further confirmed by the subsequent context in Matthew, where immediately after this two blind men call out for "the son of David" to heal them. The phrase "son of David" is a loaded political term for messiah. Both of these narratives, put back to back, show that the miracles the author is recounting are not random or merely amazing, but messianic miracles - signs specifically associated with Judaism's messianic hope.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">There is the tendency to read the miracle stories of Jesus in a rather flat way. By "flat" I mean that we think of them all the same.&nbsp;</span>We tend to treat them as benevolent acts of mercy that all generally confirm how amazing Jesus was. The problem is that we do not&nbsp;appreciated how nuanced and unique these miracles were for the original culture. In this case, the miracle is particularly messianic. The woman in the story would have only thought that she could be healed through this method if she was also convinced that he was messiah. Which begs the question, which aspect of faith is she commended for?<br /><br /><div>Jesus tassels having healing power would be the equivalent to a modern American rescuing a person from a burning house while "accidentally" wearing a large "S" on their shirt. No one today one would miss the irony of the situation that screamed "hero", "superhero", and even "Superman". No one in Jesus day reading the book of Matthew would miss the implied "M" on Jesus' healing tassels -- messiah.</div><div><br />This is why the woman is commended for her faith, faith that saves.<sup><a href="#fn8" id="ref8">8</a></sup> Lots of people came to Jesus as a prophet and miracle healer, of which Jesus was one of several. What set this woman's faith apart was who she thought Jesus was, which also set Jesus apart from the average spiritual reformer. Jesus is more. This is why the woman is commended by Jesus and the gospel author. She is an example of someone who believed that Jesus was different, predicted, and rightful ruler.<br /><br />Matthew uses her story to help us believe that there more to Jesus too. Today, it is almost too easy to call him messiah. What does that really mean in practical every day life? The question to us is whether we really treat him as messiah by allowing him to be in charge of our lives and choices. Then we may begin to feel the warmth of the healing rays of his reign inside the refugee of his wings.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /> <span style="font-size: x-small;">Notes:<br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Gentium, 'TITUS Cyberbit Basic', 'Palatino Linotype', Cardo, 'Minion Pro', KadmosU, BosporosU, 'New Athena Unicode', 'Galatia SIL', 'Galilee Unicode Gk', Porson, Tahoma, 'Lucida Grande', 'Arial Unicode MS';"><a href="#ref1" id="fn1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">1.</a> κράσπεδον.</span><br /><br /> <a href="#ref2" id="fn2" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.">2.</a>&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'New Peninim MT', 'SBL Hebrew', Cardo, 'Ezra SIL', 'TITUS Cyberbit Basic', 'Times New Roman', 'Arial Unicode MS';">ציצת</span>&nbsp;Numbers 15:38.<br /><br /> <a href="#ref3" id="fn3" title="Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.">3.</a><span style="font-family: Gentium, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Palatino Linotype, Cardo, Minion Pro, KadmosU, BosporosU, New Athena Unicode, Galatia SIL, Galilee Unicode Gk, Porson, Tahoma, Lucida Grande, Arial Unicode MS;"> כנף</span>&nbsp;Deut 22:12.<br /><br /> <a href="#ref4" id="fn4" title="Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.">4.</a> The Greek translation of&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white;">כנף&nbsp;</span>"wing" here in Malachi 3:20 is <span style="background-color: white; text-align: center;">πτέρυξ</span>&nbsp;rather than&nbsp;κράσπεδον. Conceptually the words are not far removed from each other, and Deut 22:12 shows that&nbsp;κράσπεδον is an acceptable Greek word to represent&nbsp;כנף.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /><br /> <a href="#ref5" id="fn5" title="Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.">5.</a> 3:20 by the Hebrew verse divisions.<br /><br /> <a href="#ref6" id="fn6" title="Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.">6.</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.hebrewscripturesandmore.com/APTS-Subpages/BOT634/Background/IsaiahHome/HezekiahSeal.htm" target="_blank">Biblical Archaeology Review, 25:2 (March/April, 1999), 42-5.</a><br /><br /> <a href="#ref7" id="fn7" title="Jump back to footnote 7 in the text.">7.</a> Exodus Rabbah 31:10, Soncino Press Edition.&nbsp;Even though this rabbinic source was recorded much later than the New Testament, because it shares a common link with both the Targums and archaeology, it is safe to assume such a tradition reached back into New Testament times.<br /><br /> <a href="#ref8" id="fn8" title="Jump back to footnote 8 in the text.">8.</a> The word here is&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">σῴζω, "save" as opposed to "heal". It is not uncommon for this word to be used of healing in a generic sense of being saved from disease or public disgrace, but its use here is&nbsp;conspicuous. The messianic context and background suggests that "save" might have broader implied meaning, in the sense of final or ultimate salvation (eschatological).</span></span>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-21619008154179456812012-09-16T23:48:00.004-07:002012-09-16T23:54:39.805-07:00Mark 15:37-39 Tearing down the Temple’s Veil<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LwrpzZw6bZ4/UFbHYOnME2I/AAAAAAAAAHU/zVLQTcfhI1A/s1600/veil+heaven.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LwrpzZw6bZ4/UFbHYOnME2I/AAAAAAAAAHU/zVLQTcfhI1A/s1600/veil+heaven.jpg" /></a></div>Powerful images such as the tearing of the temple’s curtain take on a life of their own in our understanding. We tend to assume the curtain must have been a problem. We also tend to assume that the curtain represented the sacrificial system, or the legal code behind it, or the even the priesthood; all of which must have inherently prevented people from direct access to God. While it is actually quite common for scripture to lament over the inadequacy of the sacrificial system, its inability to accommodate God’s full glory, its inability to change the heart of the individual toward obedience, and its tendency toward corruption and abuse, our modern aversion to rules and suspicion of institutions warps our perception of these internal critiques and prevent us from reading scripture as it was intended to be understood by its original audience.<br /><a name='more'></a></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br />Most of us understand the message behind the tearing of the temple curtain as one about removing the obstacle to our direct access to God. This interpretation is sooooo obvious to us, however, that its authenticity as a true ancient interpretation should be questioned. Would a first century Jew (or Roman), who could participate in&nbsp;the sacrificial system of priests and worship&nbsp;viscerally,&nbsp;feel that such a system kept them far from God? Or would they rather feel that it drew them in, dangerously close to God's presence?<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">This "access" understanding of the tearing of the veil can only be rooted in a post-Reformation Christianity obsessed with its own inner debates about the role of Roman Catholic priests. Nothing in the three accounts of this event suggests that Jesus' followers tried to physically enter the Holy of Holies when it happened. The surrounding passages, indeed the whole of Mark, never hint at any tension concerning access to God that needed resolve. Nor is there any evidence in the four decades the structure was left standing that any New Testament leader encouraged abandonment of either temple&nbsp;protocol or temple worship.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">On the contrary, in the book of Acts, the Spirit baptized early church is lauded for gathering in the temple regularly (2:46). If the temple system of worship had become such a blockade to God, why would they gather there? And why would they gather there if not to participate in its prayers and offerings? Paul himself shaved his hair in the fulfillment of a vow in Acts 18:18, which could only be the Nazarite Vow which implicitly would have culminated in a<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><i>sacrifice</i><span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>preformed by<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><i>priests</i>. Nor is this convention an isolated incident, for Paul was urged by the Jerusalem church leadership to assist others in this same kind of vow in order to show submission to the temple laws and traditions set up by Moses (21:24). Moreover, Paul testifies before a court that he came to <st1:city w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:city> to deliver alms and present offerings (24:17-18). The only reason to come to <st1:city w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:city> to present offerings is to do so at the temple. Clearly there is a disconnect when a modern reader, who is far removed from the temple's actual practices, reads about a destructive sign that takes place in it.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">So what is this miracle intended to convey? There is a much better way to interpret this story than guessing what the author meant by including it. To pontificate about the tearing of the veil apart from the author’s use of it is like stealing a self-assembly product out of its box from a store and leaving the instructions behind. You will inevitably end up with left over, unused verses for which no one can account. A much easier (and safer) way to interpret is to examine how each gospel integrates the event into its teaching. For brevity sake, let us examine how the author of Mark weaves the tearing of the veil into his account. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>Apocalyptic Judgment</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">Two main theories have emerged in scholarship about the “velum scissum,” the tearing of the veil. One, epitomized by Craig Evans<sup><a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1</a></sup>, views the tearing of the veil as primarily an act of judgment against a corrupt temple. In Mark 11 and 12, Jesus is found criticizing the temple’s leaders and predicting its structural demise. Here, by bounding the story of the fruitless tree with a temple void of pious prayer, the overt implication is that the temple also lacking fruit. The cursing of the one implies the withering of the other. But is Jesus critical of temple worship or temple fraud? The next chapter continues this same theme. In it we find the parable of the wicked tenant farmers, who must be overthrown in order to give the farm to others. The text is explicit at this point, “the religious leaders wanted to arrest Jesus because they realized he was telling the story against them – they were the wicked farmers” (v12 NLT). All these destructive apocalyptic judgments pronounced by Jesus remain unfulfilled even after he is affixed by nails to the cross in chapter 15. In this same chapter the onlookers mock Jesus that he will never be able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days as he claimed he would (v29). A mere ten verses later, the tearing of the veil takes place immediately after Jesus shouts with a loud voice and dies. This juxtaposition of the two events is not random. The author wants us to visualize a final pronouncement of Jesus, shouted in a booming voice, which <i>causes</i> the tearing of the veil. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">There exists evidence in the literature of the time that the temple curtain stood as a symbol of the entire temple,<sup><a href="#fn2" id="ref2">2</a></sup> and that the end of the temple would be marked by the cutting of its veil, “into small pieces.”<sup><a href="#fn3" id="ref3">3</a></sup> In this way Evans see the ripping of the veil as the ripping of the temple itself, the beginning of its destruction, a token fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions which comes to fruition by the Roman army four decades later. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">Five centuries earlier, God had also brought judgment against the temple in <st1:city w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:city> at the hands of the Babylonians. This previous destruction, however, was never interpreted as a condemnation of the divinely instituted sacrificial system <i>per se</i>, but rather against the wickedness of the people who operated it. Otherwise God’s prophets would never have sought to resurrect the temple system in the first place. There is no reason to think that Jesus’ judgment of the temple was any different. In the tenant farmers parable, the farm is not evil. It is the workers that are evil. The real problem was that greed had replaced prayer, and that murder had replaced recognizing the time of God’s visitation.&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>Repeated Pattern</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">There is good reason to think that the theology of the gospel writer runs deeper even than this theme of judgment. The author of Mark has deliberately phrased his account of the ripping of the veil in the language of the ripping of the heavens at Jesus’ water baptism.<sup><a href="#fn4" id="ref4">4</a></sup> Both accounts reference the prophet Elijah, the first in the figure of John the Baptist, the second in the misunderstanding by the Romans of Jesus’ words. In both accounts something is ripped (<span lang="EL">σχιζω</span>), first the heavens, and then the veil. In both accounts the author is careful to detail that this rending occurs in a downward direction, from top to bottom. Particularly intriguing about the association between the heavens and the veil is the little know fact that the outer veil of the temple was embroidered to look like the heavens.<sup><a href="#fn5" id="ref5">5</a></sup> Thus Josephus describes this outer visible veil as being covered by, "a panorama of the entire heavens"<sup><a href="#fn6" id="ref6">6</a></sup> The reference to the Spirit in the first account, and Jesus “breathing out” in the second account are both based on the same Greek root (<span lang="EL">πνευμα</span>). In the first account God’s thunderous voice is heard, while in the second there is deliberate highlight of Jesus’ loud voice (<span lang="EL">φωνη</span>). And both culminate in a proclamation that Jesus is son (<span lang="EL">υιος</span>) of God. In addition to these linguistic parallels are literary parallels between the two accounts. One happens at the beginning of Jesus ministry while the other happens at the end. Furthermore, the connotations of death in water baptism mirror Jesus’ actual death at his crucifixion. In Mark 10:38-39, Jesus even refers to his coming death as a baptism. There can be no doubt that the gospel writer wants us as readers to see these two events together. Buy why?<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>Apocalyptic Revelation</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">Daniel Gurtner finds the answer to this question in the apocalyptic literature of the time.<sup><a href="#fn7" id="ref7">7</a></sup> While destructive judgment may be described as “apocalyptic,” this is only one facet of Jewish apocalyptic literature. Features much more prominent in this genre are heavenly secrets which must leak through breaches in heavens gates in order to come to mortals.<sup><a href="#fn8" id="ref8">8</a></sup> Thus the gospel author may be drawing our attention to the ripping of the heavens/veil in order to suggest that a piece of revelation has escaped heaven and been made know to humanity. It is natural to look for the content of this divine mystery in the dual statements of both God and the Roman soldier, that Jesus’ is “son of God”. In this light, the veil is not rent so people may enter to God, but so that revelation about Jesus may exit the temple. The messianic secret had gotten “out” so to speak.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>Ripped Curtain, Ripped Messiah.</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">There is yet one more layer to consider that is not beyond the ability or artistry of Mark’s author. As a master theologian and story teller, the author has used some miracles as illustrations of the theological journey the disciples (and hence readers of Mark) have tread concerning the seemingly conflicted role of Jesus.<sup><a href="#fn9" id="ref9">9</a></sup> One must ask whether the author intends the ripping of the veil to represent the shattering of a false theological picture of Jesus’ messianic role. That even the disciples of Jesus expected him to assume rule as God’s anointed leader speaks to how deeply seated the idea of messianic triumph was in Jewish milieu. In context, the author’s theology is not just that Jesus is messiah, but that this messiah must himself be torn, just as the temple curtain is torn. The tearing of the temple’s curtain thus becomes a way of demonstrating the perfection of the paradox concerning Jesus’ own demise. As uncomfortable an idea as messiah’s defeat may have been, experiencing the tear in the curtain shocks the reader the into a place of understanding and acceptance that Jesus can die and still be rightful messiah. Here, the tearing of the veil is used the same way a modern movie often accompanies self-realization with a lightning bolt in the background or a light bulb which turns on. Torn asunder with the veil is any preconceived notion we may have had that God's messiah must never lose. Jesus’ death and the tearing of the veil are one, because for Mark, Jesus is the veil. This realization is the moment the author of Mark has been driving toward, indeed, the climax of his theology.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>Book of Hebrews</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">Now that we have dealt honestly with the Gospel of Mark and examined how the evangelist himself attempts to interpret the velum scissum, we may turn to an oft misunderstood reference to the veil in the book of Hebrews. In this book (as opposed to Mark) “access” to God is a major issue. It is, however, a gross miscalculation to retrofit this issue onto the tearing of the veil or assume that the veil was thought of as a problem. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">First, of the three references to the veil in Hebrews (6:19, 9:3, 10:20), none describes it as being a problem or needing to be removed. Second, the veil being spoken of is not the one that was torn, but its divine counterpart in heaven. In the clearest reference, 10:19-20, the “entrance” (<span lang="EL">καταπετασματος</span>) is modified by three clauses: 1) it is the entrance of the holy place, 2) it is opened (<span lang="EL">ενεκαινισεν</span>) for us, 3) and it is way fresh and living. The author is interested in how this way was opened and qualifies this action with the clause, “through (<span lang="EL">δια</span>) the veil.” The verb “opened” or “consecrated” need not indicate tearing (<span lang="EL">σχιζω</span>) in any sense. It can simply mean that a gateway functioned as it was intended, by opening. The preposition (<span lang="EL">δια</span>) also does not naturally lend itself to splitting, but rather indicates either a <i>direction</i> of motion (as in entrance), or more likely in this case the <i>means</i> through which a thing is accomplished. </div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">The first word which smacks of destruction implicitly is “flesh”. By equating the heavenly veil with the “sacrificed” flesh of Jesus, the author is asserting that Jesus’ bodily death is the veil through which we must pass to enter heaven. It is this veil which Jesus “opened” for us. Having inside knowledge that that early Christians identified Jesus’ death with the tearing of the physical veil offers a rare glimpse into the origin of this theological picture of Jesus’ body and how they wrestled to understand his death. Through this visualization, a first century Jew could appropriate what would otherwise be incomprehensible, the abandonment and defeat of God’s anointed leader. &nbsp;</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><h3>So What?</h3><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">The message of Hebrews is not that the veil of the temple unnecessarily hindered people from being near God. The message is that Jesus functions as a curtained entrance to heaven, its most sacred gate, a gate which still shuts out those who refuse to enter through it. Gates are by nature filters. They are meant to keep out some while admitting others. The veil in the temple properly functioned in this regard, keeping out everyone except the high priest once a year. Heaven above is a temple, with a thick impassible curtain, for no tainted mortal should be in God’s presence, nor can any withstand God’s presence without certain safety measures. This heavenly curtain is the death of Jesus. Either we enter by it, or we don’t enter at all.</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">The theology stemming from the temple’s veil in the book of Hebrews and Mark are complimentary and parallel. Neither suggests that the ripping of the veil overturned any God ordained law. Rather both seek to identify Jesus’ death with the veil itself. Previous to Jesus’ death the masses did not have liberty to heaven. The temple’s curtain did not cause this restriction, nor would its removal rectify it. As identified by Isaiah, who lived in the days of one of God’s temples:</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">“But your sinful acts have alienated you from your God…. For this reason deliverance is far from us and salvation does not reach us….” nevertheless, “A protector comes to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their rebellious deeds, says the LORD.” (NET Isaiah 59:2, 9 ,20)</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">Jesus’ death becomes a gateway to heaven precisely because it rectifies this sin issue by both protecting the repentant and transforming them into saints.&nbsp;</div><br /><br />Notes:<br /><sup><a href="#ref1" id="fn1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">1.</a> Mark 8:27 – 16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, 34b.<br /><br /><a href="#ref2" id="fn2" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.">2.</a> In Sirach 50, the temple is referred to as, “the house of the veil”.<br /><br /><a href="#ref3" id="fn3" title="Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.">3.</a> The Lives of the Prophets, Old Testament&nbsp;Pseudepigrapha, &nbsp;ed. Charlesworth, 2:239.<br /><br /><a href="#ref4" id="fn4" title="Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.">4.</a> David Ulansey,<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.mysterium.com/veil.html" target="_blank">The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic "Inclusio"</a>.<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span><i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i><span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25<br /><br /><a href="#ref5" id="fn5" title="Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.">5.</a> Ibid.<br /><br /><a href="#ref6" id="fn6" title="Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.">6.</a> Jewish Wars 5.5.4 §§ 212-14. Trans. adapted from H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979) vol. 3, p. 265.<br /><br /><a href="#ref7" id="fn7" title="Jump back to footnote 7 in the text.">7.</a> Daniel Gurtner, "The Rending of the Veil and Markan christology: "unveiling" the 'ΥΟΙΣ ΘΕΟΥ' (Mark 15:38-39)"<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>Biblical Interpretation<span class="apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span>15 no 30 2007, pg 292-306.<br /><br /><a href="#ref8" id="fn8" title="Jump back to footnote 8 in the text.">8.</a> Ibid, 302.<br /><br /><a href="#ref9" id="fn9" title="Jump back to footnote 9 in the text.">9.</a> For example, the double touch healing of a blind man in Mark 9 serves to illustrate how Peter has realized (finally) that Jesus is the messiah, but is slow to “see” that this means that he must suffer and die. Peter is a “half seeing” disciple, just as the blind man became “half seeing” before he was fully healed.<br /></sup>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-73384350768550818222012-06-25T13:28:00.003-07:002012-06-25T14:06:39.367-07:00Acts 2: Understanding Pentecost: Jewish Background (part 2)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2aDX-aHlfAo/T9u7dO4TerI/AAAAAAAAAGs/dxqVAUORplc/s1600/Shavuot+Art.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2aDX-aHlfAo/T9u7dO4TerI/AAAAAAAAAGs/dxqVAUORplc/s200/Shavuot+Art.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Jewish traditions concerning Pentecost (Shavuot) are numerous and continue to be written even today. Discerning which ones are of sufficient antiquity to be relevant to New Testament research is tricky indeed, but not impossible. Here I present several I have judged relevant for understanding the events described in the book of Acts.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><h3>1) A Covenant Forging Day</h3>One solid extra-biblical inter-testamental book which we know the first century had access to is the book of <i>Jubilees</i> because if was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this work, the book of Genesis is retold with an emphasis on dividing and keeping accurate days, holidays, and years. In this retelling, the author specifies when each of the covenants God made with mankind occurred. Noah emerges from the ark to sacrifice to God in the third month, the month of Pentecost. Immediately after relating the covenant God made with Noah it is written, "Therefore, it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets that they should observe the feast of Shebuot in this month, once per year, in order to renew the covenant in all (respects), year by year."<sup><a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1</a></sup> Jubilees does not ignore that this is also the wheat harvest celebration for a few sentences later it has, "...and it is the feast of the first fruits. This feast is twofold and of two natures." In the same vein, God forges the covenant with Abram, "in the third month, in the middle of the month," immediately after Abram had, "made a feast of the firstfruits of the harvest of grain."<sup><a href="#fn2" id="ref2">2</a></sup> All this is compounded by the opening line of the book at Mt. Sinai:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">...in the third month on the sixteenth day of that month, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Come up to me on the mountain, and I shall give you two stone tablets of the Law...."</blockquote>This of course is the&nbsp;quintessential Pentecost (pun fully intended), when God covenants with the people gathered, transforming them into God's own nation. This serves to demonstrate that in New Testament times there existed the idea that Pentecost was was the very time of the year at which God made covenant, over and over again. If there ever was a time to institute the <i>berit hadash </i>(new covenant), it would be on Pentecost. If ever there was a time to resurrect God's people as a new nation, it was Pentecost. If ever there was a time to re-institute the church, it would be Pentecost!<br /><br /><h3>2) Annual Qumran Induction Ceremony</h3>The second solid extra-biblical source that connects Pentecost to covenant are found in the practices of Qumran itself. In the Qumran community, there was an annual ceremony conducted where new members were inducted to the community and current members renewed their oath.<sup><a href="#fn3" id="ref3">3</a></sup> During this ceremony, priests recited the blessings and curses of the covenant over the those present, just as was done with the Mosaic covenant and its renewals.&nbsp;The officiating priests would also declare, “the great deeds of God”.<sup><a href="#fn4" id="ref4">4</a></sup> The linguistic similarity with the "mighty deeds of God" in Acts 2:11 cannot be lightly dismissed.&nbsp;Unfortunate for the Pentecostal movement, its own scholars such as Gordon Fee and Robert Menzies both refrain from making a connection between such a ceremony and Pentecost. Fee does, however, aptly cite Qumran as the one Jewish sect where the Holy Spirit and the prophetic continued to be active.<sup><a href="#fn5" id="ref5">5</a></sup>&nbsp; Menzies&nbsp;tries to assert that the date of the ceremony is "obscure".<sup><a href="#fn6" id="ref6">6</a></sup> In another scroll,<sup><a href="#fn7" id="ref7">7</a></sup> however, we find that "all&nbsp;[the inhabitants of] the camps shall congregate in the third month and curse&nbsp;those who turn right [or left from the] Law."<sup><a href="#fn8" id="ref8">8</a></sup> The combination of blessing, cursing, and the third month leaves only one rational date for this ceremony. Pentecost.<br /><br /><h3>3) Fiery Crowns Lost and Returned</h3>The third most relevant source is unquestionably written after the New Testament period. Because, however, it is congruent with the New Testament account in Acts 2 and also congruent with&nbsp;dateable Jewish literature as in the previous two examples, there is a strong case that the tradition in the Babelonian Talmud, Shabbat 88a-b, existed in oral form in the first century. In it thousands of angels tie two crowns (literally "horns") to each of the heads of the&nbsp;Israelites when they hear the Ten Commandments spoken in all the languages of the world and subsequently vow to do them and obey them. When they sin with the golden calf, thousands of angels remove these crowns from the Israelites and give them all to Moses, by which his face shines ("horns/projects"). This facial&nbsp;radiance&nbsp;is not far removed from what scholars call&nbsp;<i>mellamu</i>, a concept in the ancient world where a god singles out an individual by raping his head in a fiery halo which forms a crown.<sup><a href="#fn9" id="ref9">9</a></sup> The tradition then goes on to anticipate the day that God will return this theophanic head gear to them. In Acts 2, this anticipation is fulfilled, via "tongues of fire" (i.e. visual horns) on the heads of the people. The fact that Stephen, within the book of Acts itself, describes the law as "being put into effect by angels" (7:53) lends further credence not only to this tradition's existence at that time, but also its support within the early movement. Further support of this concept is found within the opening chapters of book of Hebrews where Jesus, the implementer of the younger covenant, is compared with angels, the implementers of the elder covenant (2:1-4). Hebrews 1:7 &nbsp;even describes these angelic covenant messengers as "flames of fire" by quoting the Greek version of Psalm 104:4.<br /><br /><br /><h3>Devil's Advocate:</h3>If these Jewish traditions are not only relevant, but essential to understanding Acts 2 as I claim, then why does Peter quote Joel and not Jeremiah 31:31 or some other "covenant" tip off passage? Great question! For one, there is no reason to think he didn't, but that is an&nbsp;argument&nbsp;from silence.<br /><br />First, neither Peter nor Luke had to say it explicitly. Ultimately, I believe Luke is writing to a Jewish audience to convince them that Gentiles should be accepted without circumcision. His original audience would have known all these traditions merely by hinting at them with things like multiple languages, fiery crowns, the Holy Spirit, etc. We do this all the time in our retelling of history, in our movies, and in our day to day language, recasting new things in garb of the familiar.<br /><br />Second, Luke is explicit. He says it happens on Pentecost. Were not the traditions associated with Pentecost important to the theology of the account it would not have been mentioned. Compound this with the little known fact that Luke almost never calls God's covenants with the word for <i>covenant</i>. He almost always calls them <i>promises</i> instead. For Luke to quote Jesus calling the Holy Spirit, "the promise from the Father" in one breath, and then call God's other covenants "the promise to David" or "the promise to our fathers" in the next several chapters is deliberate. For Luke the "promise of the Spirit" was the "covenant of the Spirit".<br /><br />Third, the real motivation behind this question is "how come Peter didn't tell me!" Peter (and Luke) are more interested in interpreting why this particular Pentecost celebration should be so favored by God, as opposed to any other year it was celebrated. They want their audience to see that Jesus' death, resurrection, ascension, (return?) <i>CAUSED</i> this particular out pouring. Luke had no time or space to waste ink on a&nbsp;rudimentary&nbsp;Jewish (pardon the phrase) "Sunday school" lesson. Luke's two books in the New Testament are already the two largest, both being about the same size probably because this is about how how much would fit on one full scroll. Luke was already condensing his&nbsp;voluminous work to fit the space provided.<br /><br />&lt; Skip back to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thebiblebean.com/2012/06/acts-2-understanding-pentecost-more.html" target="_blank">part one</a>&nbsp; <br /><br />Notes:<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a id="fn1" href="#ref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">1.</a>&nbsp;Jubilees&nbsp; 6:17 in</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">&nbsp;James&nbsp;Charlesworth. <i>The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha</i>, 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983.&nbsp;Pseudepigrapha&nbsp;vol. 2, pg 67.<br /><br /><a id="fn2" href="#ref2" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.">2.</a> ibid. 15:1 pg 85.<br /><br /><a id="fn3" href="#ref3" title="Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.">3.</a> 1QS I 16 - III 12 <br /><br /><a id="fn4" href="#ref4" title="Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.">4.</a> 1QS I 21<br /><br /><a id="fn5" href="#ref5" title="Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.">5.</a> Gordon Fee, <i>God’s Empowering Presence</i>. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. pg 914.<br /><br /><a id="fn6" href="#ref6" title="Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.">6.</a> Menzies, Robert P. <i>The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts</i>, Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, no. 54, Edited by David Hill. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pg 233.<br /><br /><a id="fn7" href="#ref7" title="Jump back to footnote 7 in the text.">7.</a>&nbsp;4QD<sup>a</sup>&nbsp;(4Q266) 11 16-18 [formerly 4QD<sup>b&nbsp;</sup>(4Q267) 18 V 16-18] and also 4QD<sup>e&nbsp;</sup>(4Q270) 7 II 11-12 [formerly 11 II 11-12]<br /><br /><a id="fn8" href="#ref8" title="Jump back to footnote 8 in the text.">8.</a>&nbsp;Translation is from Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4 XIII: The Damascus Document(4Q266-273), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 77. See also James C.&nbsp;VanderKam, &nbsp;“Covenant and Pentecost.” <i>Calvin Theological Journal </i>37.2 (2002): 239-54.<br /><br /><a id="fn9" href="#ref9" title="Jump back to footnote 9 in the text.">9.</a>&nbsp;Jeffrey&nbsp;Niehaus. <i>God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East</i>. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995, pg 350-5. See also Moshe&nbsp;Weinfeld. “Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law” <i>Immanuel</i> 8 (Spring 1978): 7-18.</span>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-88748461300426072442012-06-19T03:31:00.000-07:002012-06-19T03:31:16.872-07:00Response to Peter Enns<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TGd39-gn60Y/T-BTprzRi4I/AAAAAAAAAG4/uDfq-MAR4Kk/s1600/phd.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TGd39-gn60Y/T-BTprzRi4I/AAAAAAAAAG4/uDfq-MAR4Kk/s200/phd.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>Peter Enns' post&nbsp;<i><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/06/if-they-only-knew-what-i-thought-the-sad-cycle-of-evangelical-biblical-scholarship/#comment-10229" target="_blank">“If They Only Knew What I Thought”: The Sad Cycle of Evangelical Biblical Scholarship</a>, </i>is a great article that&nbsp;has given voice to a serious issue within conservative Christian schools.<br /><br />I whole heartily agree that Evangelical schools need to turn down the witch hunts and choose their battles more wisely. But how loose is advisable? <br /><a name='more'></a>The flaws inherent in the model of the critical schools are apparent to all Evangelicals which darken their doors. I'm not sure that the goal should be giving Evangelical professors "complete" academic freedom. Freedom to question? Yes. Freedom to research? Yes. Freedom to argue for change in and refinement of believes? Yes. But freedom to espouse positions which undercut the legitimacy of faith itself? Here I take issue with the so called "critical" school. As messy and elusive as a discussion which defines essential Christianity would be, for scholarship to make an impact on faith it needs credibility with the community of faith. This credibility does not come from patronizing confessions. It comes through service that is truly helpful and admirable. &nbsp; <br /><br />None of us wants to be judged by the schools at which we teach. But neither is it fair to our students to hash out our doubts about the school's "position" pre-maturely in front of them. I don't know where the line should be drawn, especially in areas where research has attained a greater level of specificity (and debate!) faster than our creeds can hope to accommodate. But this I believe, biblical scholarship which gratifies only our own curiosity is selfish. Apart from the body of Christ, biblical scholarship starves and kills the church it was meant to feed.<br /><br />Just a thought... is not the reason so much of the gospels are devoted to Jesus arguing with the Pharisees most logically that he was one? Son of a carpenter... who frequently dines with members of his own party? Is not Jesus an example of one who struggles to redefine his own institution, who engages their legal debates, who does not hesitate to critique prejudice and hypocrisy, but who also keeps his own "messianic secret" because his eschatology was so unacceptable, even to his own? This is not a new battle.<br /><div><br /></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-39926109721801918662012-06-15T13:25:00.010-07:002012-06-25T13:54:09.773-07:00Acts 2: Understanding Pentecost: more than meets the eye (part 1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hbhCFIh8Byo/T9uUo08ts5I/AAAAAAAAAGg/EMQR57s0m20/s1600/iceberg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hbhCFIh8Byo/T9uUo08ts5I/AAAAAAAAAGg/EMQR57s0m20/s200/iceberg.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>A century of rubbing shoulders with Pentecostals (not to mention the prolific numerical growth of the Pentecostal movement worldwide) has softened some of its harsher critics. Nevertheless, there remains a great divide between ministers who actively encourage&nbsp;parishioners to pursue "further" experience(s) of the Holy Spirit and those who counsel their members to rest in the assurance that they already have received and possess the Holy Spirit. This divide is rooted in a fundamental difference of doctrine about the role of the Holy Spirit and the nature of what the Bible means by the phrase "baptized in the Holy Spirit".<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><div>Pentecostals think they really have it. Evangelicals<sup><a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1</a></sup> and Catholics think they understand it. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, I would suggest that Pentecostals have not yet&nbsp;reckoned with everything the baptism in the Holy Spirit is and does, and Evangelicals and Catholics have yet to think through and revise their polemics.</div><div><div style="width: 100%;"><div style=" border: double 4px; font-size: 20px; float: right; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; padding: 2px; width: 300px;"><div style="text-align: center;">the Dead Sea Scrolls ... force us to consider Jewish traditions about Pentecost</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br /></div></div><div>What the Dead Sea Scrolls have done is to force us to consider Jewish traditions about Pentecost that have previously been discounted as too late to be relevant. These diverse traditions all suggest a single common denominator upon which <i>all </i>of New Testament pneumatology is built -- that in the New Testament period, Pentecost was primarily a day of covenant forging and renewing!<br /><br />In Acts 2:1, Luke purposefully highlights that the miraculous out pouring of the Holy Spirit&nbsp;occurred on "Pentecost", the Greek name of the Jewish feast of Shavuot. No detail of biblical narrative is random. Luke is intentionally creating theology by investing his account with Judaisms' prior understanding of this celebration.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The problem with this particular celebration is that the Hebrew Bible does not explicitly state everything that Shavuot became to the Israelites. Pastors attempting to do due diligence in their background study read in the Hebrew Bible laws regulating a harvest festival and stop there. What they don't realize is that within Judaism Shavuot became so much more than a wheat harvest. By not being familiar with the cultural and literary life of Shavuot through history, many well intentioned Christians have cut short their background study. They are like miners who spent all day mining to find one speck of gold dust and left the cave thinking that it was all mined. Meanwhile, just down another corridor there was a huge vein of gold waiting to be dug out.<br /><br />Another problem is that many pre-Dead Sea Scrolls scholars (both Christian<sup><a href="#fn2" id="ref2">2</a></sup> and Jewish<sup><a href="#fn3" id="ref3">3</a></sup>) taught that the Jewish traditions that associated Shavuot with covenant were fools-gold because they <i>all</i> developed&nbsp;<i>after </i>the New Testament era. In other words, these traditions were not newly discovered at Qumran. We have known about them for millennia,&nbsp;appropriately&nbsp;preserved by Jews around the world. The fact that these covenant connections also occurred in the Dead Sea Scrolls now forces everyone to reassess their value for biblical and theological study.<sup><a href="#fn4" id="ref4">4</a></sup> Yet, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was recent enough that many ministers still come across scholarly articles of a bygone paradigm, not realizing that there is evidence these articles do not consider.<br /><div style="width: 100%;"><div style=" border: double 4px; font-size: 20px; float: right; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; padding: 2px; width: 300px;"><div style="text-align: center;">All of the teachings on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament need to be reassessed</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br /></div>All of this is to say, there is more to Pentecost than meets the eye. Few people have heard about the covenant connection the Holy Spirit has with the Law of God. All of the teachings on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament need to be reassessed, and the way we communicate them needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, for Pentecostal and Evangelical alike.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>But why do Evangelicals need to rebuild their pneumatology? Haven't Evangelical scholars such as James Dunn<sup><a href="#fn5" id="ref5">5</a></sup> and Max Turner<sup><a href="#fn6" id="ref6">6</a></sup> already appropriated such covenant-Sinai imagery into their theology? They have. Yet they have argued against Pentecostals in such a way that assumes covenant always equals salvation. To the contrary, to say that the Holy Spirit is covenantal in nature is a blade that cuts both ways, as I will argue in "subsequent" posts. ;)<br /><br />While the language of the debate between Christian groups needs to be completely reframed, it is my hope that treating the Holy Spirit as the agent of covenant will build a bridge of understanding and unity between the various ministry philosophies that exist.</div><div><br /></div><div>Notes:<br /><sup id="fn1"><a href="#ref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">1.</a> Even though Pentecostals find themselves under the wide umbrella of Evangelical theology, I use Evangelical here for Evangelicals of an anti-Pentecostal persuasion.</sup><br /><br /><sup id="fn2"><a href="#ref2" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.">2.</a> O’Toole, Robert. “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102.2 (1983): 245-58. See also Eduard Lohse, "πεντηκοστη" 6:44-53 in <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</i>. eds. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.</sup><br /><br /><sup id="fn3"><a href="#ref3" title="Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.">3.</a> Jacobs, Louis. “SHAVUOT” Pages 1319–22 in vol. 14 of <i>Encyclopaedia Judaica</i>. Edited by Cecil Roth and Geoffrey Wigoder. 26 vols. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1973.</sup><br /><br /><sup id="fn4"><a href="#ref4" title="Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.">4.</a> VanderKam, James C. “Covenant and Pentecost.” Calvin Theological Journal 37.2 (2002): 239-54.</sup><br /><br /><sup id="fn5"><a href="#ref5" title="Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.">5.</a> Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1939.</sup><br /><br /><sup id="fn6"><a href="#ref6" title="Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.">6.</a> Turner, Max. Power From On High: the Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series, no. 9, Edited John Christopher Thomas, et al. England, Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.</sup></div>Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7808783313174673387.post-49493170388338293632012-06-10T22:02:00.000-07:002012-06-10T22:02:05.158-07:00Matthew 5:21-26 Ax Heads and Altars: Fulfilling the Law "Do Not Murder"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H8aQhJBInv0/T9VbxUH8KaI/AAAAAAAAAGU/3Vjw-5WAFN0/s1600/axe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H8aQhJBInv0/T9VbxUH8KaI/AAAAAAAAAGU/3Vjw-5WAFN0/s320/axe.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>One of the primary passages to which people turn when they want to suggest that Jesus did away with Torah observance is the Sermon on the Mount. In it we find Jesus uttering the famous&nbsp;mantra, "You've heard that it was said... BUT I tell you..." Before we jump to the conclusion that Jesus was contradicting Torah, and before we jump to some&nbsp;convoluted idea in Paul's&nbsp;writings&nbsp;that the law was inadequate, let's&nbsp;reacquaint ourselves with how the Law actually defined murder and what it legislated concerning murders. Sound fair?<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Deuteronomy 19:4-6 &nbsp;"...if he has accidentally killed another without hating him at the time of the accident. Suppose he goes with another to the forest to cut wood and when he raises the ax to cut the tree, the ax head flies loose from the handle and strikes his fellow worker so hard that he dies. The person responsible may then flee to one of these cities to save himself. &nbsp;Otherwise the blood avenger will chase after the killer in the heat of his anger, eventually overtake him, and kill him, though this is not a capital case since he did not hate him at the time of the accident." (NET)</blockquote><br />(American English = ax, British and International English = axe) Compare these verses to the opposite case a few verses later:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Deuteronomy 19:11-13 &nbsp;"However, suppose a person hates another and stalks him, attacks him, kills him, and then flees to one of these cities. The elders of his own city must send for him and remove him from there to deliver him over to the blood avenger to die. You must not pity him, but purge out the blood of the innocent from Israel, so that it may go well with you." (NET)</blockquote><br />In theses passages, there is a clear line defining when a violent act can be considered culpable murder. Not only must there be motive to kill, the motive is explicitly named, hate. According to the law, hate is the ingredient that made death murder. Knowing this background, Jesus' statement that anger <i>is</i> murder cannot be seen as either contradictory or&nbsp;supplementary to the Law. Jesus is accurately interpreting and applying the intent of the law of murder and bringing with it the full weight of its force and&nbsp;implementation. The question is not where Jesus came up with the wisdom or beauty of his words. That is obvious. The question is why we ever thought that Jesus' statements were new? This betrays how little we&nbsp;aquatint ourselves with God's word.<br /><br />Consider one more passage from the Law:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Exodus 21:12-14 "Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death. But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it comes about by accident, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him with guile, you will take him from my altar to die." (NET)</blockquote><br />The fact that Jesus mentions offering one's gift to God at "my altar", as opposed to the "temple" or "Jerusalem", or "with a priest" suggests that that this very passage is what Jesus had in mind. If anger <i>is </i>murder (not is <i>like</i> murder) and carries the same&nbsp;repercussions, would not offering a gift at the altar provide no safety to one who has hurled with malice words that pierce? Hence Jesus councils to the individual to make peace with their adversary, else the consequences will be swiftly exacted with no mitigation.<br /><br />And this is why this passage is a perfect illustration of beatitude praising "peace-makers" as children of God. It is too easy for an English reader to picture the "peace-makers" Jesus is highlighting as political diplomats far removed from day to day life in an angry world. Or it is too easy to picture a "peace-maker" as a third party in a dispute that brings a level hand and a calm disposition to feuding parties. Peace-makers are dirtier than this. They are those who run after those whom they have hurt, after those at whom they have hurled hate, like ax heads that fly off their handles. Peacemaking is not fun. It is humbling. For in it we regret every angry word we have spoken.<br /><br />So what is Jesus contradicting? Understanding how similar Jesus' teaching about murder and anger and hate is to the Torah should causes us to re-examine the "BUT I tell you...." In verse 20, Jesus seems to quote a modern rabbinic law about to whom murderers are duly subject, namely the court. There is some debate about whether this is an earthly court or a heavenly court. Nevertheless, apparently Jesus not only agreed with this sentiment, but criticized how narrowly it was construed. Jesus essentially said that a certain kind of verbal abuse was ALSO answerable to the Sanhedrin (the high Jewish court of the day) and even to Gehenna itself. Far from overturning anything, Jesus actually uses the Old Testament to suggest that Jewish law be stricter! How's that for "fulfilling" the Law?Joseph Bonhamhttps://plus.google.com/103470241619456651056noreply@blogger.com0